The Princess Bride 

While home sick in bed, a young boy's grandfather reads him a story called The Princess Bride.

Director: Rob Reiner

Writers: William Goldman (book), William Goldman (screenplay)

Stars: Cary Elwes, Mandy Patinkin, Robin Wright

Storyline

A kindly grandfather sits down with his ill grandson and reads him a story. The story is one that has been passed down from father to son for generations. As the grandfather reads the story, the action comes alive. The story is a classic tale of love and adventure as the beautiful Buttercup, engaged to the odious Prince Humperdinck, is kidnapped and held against her will in order to start a war, It is up to Westley (her childhood beau, now returned as the Dread Pirate Roberts) to save her. On the way he meets a thief and his hired helpers, an accomplished swordsman and a huge, super strong giant, both of whom become Westley's companions in his quest.

Reviews

There's enough reviews here to show how enjoyable and entertaining this movie is, but I had to put my own word in...

I simply love this movie. I watched it with my parents when I was very young, and have been watching it constantly ever since. It's a movie that I just can't seem to grow tired of. For one, I absolutely love the medieval fantasy genre, both in books and movies. From a small child I've loved knights, castles, dragons. the whole sort. This movie, quite simply, puts the viewer into an imaginative world where everything seems real. Second, the characters are so enjoyable to watch, you really begin to feel for them

• all of them. Even humperdink, whose name does him justice, gets pity at

the end. Lastly, the grandfather's list of the qualities of the book at the very beginning are all true... this story has everything. That is why it is such a classic, when everything comes down to it. From the moving love story between Wesly and Buttercup, to the dynamic and brilliantly scripted duel between the Man in Black and Indigo, to even the hilarious bickering from Vezinni to his lovable giant, Fezzik... This movie finds a place to include EVERYTHING one can imagine. The story moves along at a great pace, and you feel as though the whole land has been covered when the book is closed. Furthermore, the whole conception of using the "telling a story" approach doesn't taken away from the realism of the story, but raises it even more by showing how mesmerized the boy is, listening to the tale - just as we are, in front of the screen.

Maybe it was how I was captivated to the screen, watching it as a child... Maybe it was how I'd pop the movie in and turn a boring Sunday afternoon an exciting adventure as I grew up... Or maybe it's how I can sit down with friends and all enjoy the movie together, laughing at its funny parts, and cheering at it's exciting moments. The movie has a place in my heart, and that will never go away. A "10" on the scale, and even these words, can't begin to tell how much I love this movie.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Harry finds himself mysteriously selected as an under-aged competitor in a dangerous tournament between three schools of magic.

Director: Mike Newell

Writers: Steve Kloves (screenplay), J.K. Rowling (novel)

Stars: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint

Storyline

Harry's fourth year at Hogwarts is about to start and he is enjoying the summer vacation with his friends. They get the tickets to The Quidditch World Cup Final but after the match is over, people dressed like Lord Voldemort's 'Death Eaters' set a fire to all the visitors' tents, coupled with the appearance of Voldemort's symbol, the 'Dark Mark' in the sky, which causes a frenzy across the magical community. That same year, Hogwarts is hosting 'The Triwizard Tournament', a magical tournament between three well-known schools of magic : Hogwarts, Beauxbatons and Durmstrang. The contestants have to be above the age of 17, and are chosen by a magical object called Goblet of Fire. On the night of selection, however, the Goblet spews out four names instead of the usual three, with Harry unwittingly being selected as the Fourth Champion. Since the magic cannot be reversed, Harry is forced to go with it and brave three exceedingly difficult tasks.

Reviews

Based on one of the best books of the Harry Potter series, the film adaptation of 'Harry Potter and the Goblet' had a lot to live up to and I think it succeeded. As Potter fans will know, in GoF, Harry is now fourteen and in his Fourth Year at Hogwarts. When an ancient tournament between Hogwarts and two other European wizarding schools is held that year, a Seventh Year contestant is chosen from each school to compete but things go dramatically awry when Harry, three years too young to even be entered in the dangerous and challenging tournament, is somehow also chosen after his name is mysteriously nominated. GoF is a sharp turning point in the books as the tone darkens considerably and the characters themselves change from being rather wide-eyed innocent children to adolescents thrust the turbulent, uncertain adult world where being 'good' or even an innocent will not guarantee your survival. This shift is also reflected in the film, which was rated 12A (PG13 for Americans), the first of the HP films to be rated so high.

I have to say I did enjoy this film, although Prisoner of Azkaban remains my favourite of the four. Unlike the first two films, this did not attempt to condescend as much to small children in the audience. The tasks of the Triwizard tournament captured most of the thrills of the book, particularly the second water-based task where the merpeople were suitably creepy (now we know why none of the kids go swimming in the summer term!), but the first task over-ran for a minute or two more than needed. Light romance was touched upon yet wasn't over-emphasised and the Yule Ball will please those who enjoyed the scenes in the book but audience members over the age of sixteen might find teens ogling each other a tad dull (Hermione is very out-of-character and the scene does drag).

The acting of the adult cast is, of course, exemplary as always. Alan Rickman's Snape may only have had four or so scenes but he definitely made his presences known while Maggie Smith really captured the essence of McGonagall. Many people do miss Richard Harris' Dumbledore but I found that Michael Gambon has done an excellent job of moulding the role to make it his own. In GoF, Dumbledore feels very human in the way he carries the weight of the wizarding world on his shoulders and though he struggles at times, his concern for his pupils is paramount. I finally felt the close rapport between Dumbledore and Harry in this film that was missing in the previous three HP flicks. However, the prize has to go to Brendan Gleeson for his scene-stealing depiction of Mad-Eye Moody. Gleeson clearly enjoyed illustrating Moody's dangerous, feral edge.

The younger cast have also grown into their roles, improving from their previous outing. Rupert Grint, usually used to playing a comical and stupid Ron, had the chance to cut his acting teeth and show Ron's darker, bitter side and he did well. The Phelp twins have also improved dramatically. No longer do they come across as wooden cut-outs just reading from a cue-card and instead they are able to show the mischievous spontaneity of the Weasley twins. And I look forward to seeing more of Matthew Lewis, who was great at showing Neville's sensitive side without making him too klutzy. Out of the younger cast, though, Dan Radcliffe is the one who has progressed the most. In PoA, he was awful in the 'he was their friend' scene so he seems like another boy in the harrowing graveyard scene and the aftermath, depicting Harry's anger, feelings of vulnerability and grief. He still stumbled on occasion in other scenes but I, at last, have faith he might be able to do the Harry of 'Order of the Phoenix' justice when the time comes.

The film did lose points on a few issues. Although most of the young cast have expanded their acting skills as they have gone on, Emma Watson is waning. She has a tendency of over-enunciating her lines and being too melodramatic, which worked in 'The Philosopher's Stone' when Hermione was condescending and childishly bossy, but is just annoying by this point. She spent most of the film sounding as if she was on the verge of tears or in a hormonal snit, even in scenes which were not remotely sad or upsetting. There was also a choppy feel to the film, as if Steve Kloves struggled to properly condense the book into a two-hour film. Those who haven't read the books will have missed quite a bit and those who have read the books will feel the film is very rushed. Molly Weasley and the Dursleys were also missed, especially since I think Julie Walters would have been exceptional in the Molly/Harry interactions that take place aftermath of the graveyard scenes of the novel as the film didn't round off in a manner that reflected a boy had died and Harry would be traumatised by what he saw.

I think most Potter fans will enjoy this although they will remark that it could have been better. Non-fans will also get something from this film as I imagine it is hard not to be captivated by the many action and dramatic events but they may find themselves muddled by the story. I would recommend that parents of young children either keep away or, at the very least, check out the film firstly before deciding if their child is old enough to cope with it. When I went to see it, there was a small lad of four or five being dragged along and in the middle of a particularly fearsome incident, the silence of the moment was cut by a wee voice crying, 'Mummy, I'm scared' so, parents, be warned.

The Lion King

Lion cub and future king Simba searches for his identity. His eagerness to please others and penchant for testing his boundaries sometimes gets him into trouble.

Directors: Roger Allers, Rob Minkoff

Writers: Irene Mecchi (screenplay), Jonathan Roberts (screenplay), 27 more credits »

Stars: Matthew Broderick, Jeremy Irons, James Earl Jones

Storyline

A young lion Prince is cast out of his pride by his cruel uncle, who claims he killed his father. While the uncle rules with an iron fist, the prince grows up beyond the savannah, living by a philosophy: No worries for the rest of your days. But when his past comes to haunt him, the young Prince must decide his fate: will he remain an outcast, or face his demons and become what he needs to be?

Reviews

Delightful animated feature from Walt Disney Pictures about a naive young lion cub destined for greatness. Born the son of a beloved and authoritative king he's groomed to be the next ruler of the kingdom, but along the way he encounters tragic detours at the hands of his villainous uncle and scheming hyena henchmen. Years later—as an adult—he decides to embrace his destiny and take his proper place in the Circle of Life. Warm, intelligent, laugh-out loud funny film is a triumph in every aspect; unforgettable songs, snappy dialogue, remarkable animation, and a stellar cast of voices make this a treat for all ages. A rousing adventure that you can enjoy again and again, and arguably one of the finest animated films ever made. 

Maleficent

A vengeful fairy is driven to curse an infant princess, only to discover that the child may be the one person who can restore peace to their troubled land.

Director: Robert Stromberg

Writers: Linda Woolverton (screenplay), Charles Perrault (based on the story "La Belle au bois dormant" by), 7 more credits »

Stars: Angelina Jolie, Elle Fanning, Sharlto Copley

Storyline

A beautiful, pure-hearted young woman, Maleficent has an idyllic life growing up in a peaceable forest kingdom, until one day when an invading army threatens the harmony of the land. Maleficent rises to be the land's fiercest protector, but she ultimately suffers a ruthless betrayal - an act that begins to turn her pure heart to stone. Bent on revenge, Maleficent faces a battle with the invading king's successor and, as a result, places a curse upon his newborn infant Aurora. As the child grows, Maleficent realizes that Aurora holds the key to peace in the kingdom - and perhaps to Maleficent's true happiness as well.

Reviews

This is more of an adult version of sleeping beauty with an added twist that makes it more interesting to watch. Angelina Jolie is an actress who can say so much and convey so much emotion with just a look. For me, it's one of the best Disney films ever made. It had much more depth and emotion than the original version. I feel that the movie as well as the acting was very much underrated. So many people that I have spoken to feel the same way about this movie. There is a message in this movie that I haven't heard mentioned by anybody. It is, to be careful of what you say or do out of anger or hatefulness, because you can't take some things back.

The Book of Life

Manolo, a young man who is torn between fulfilling the expectations of his family and following his heart, embarks on an adventure that spans three fantastic worlds where he must face his greatest fears.

Director: Jorge R. Gutiérrez (as Jorge R. Gutierrez)

Writers: Jorge R. Gutiérrez (as Jorge R. Gutierrez) , Douglas Langdale (as Doug Langdale)

Stars: Diego Luna, Zoe Saldana, Channing Tatum

Storyline

From producer Guillermo del Toro and director Jorge Gutierrez comes an animated comedy with a unique visual style. THE BOOK OF LIFE is the journey of Manolo, a young man who is torn between fulfilling the expectations of his family and following his heart. Before choosing which path to follow, he embarks on an incredible adventure that spans three fantastical worlds where he must face his greatest fears. Rich with a fresh take on pop music favorites, THE BOOK OF LIFE encourages us to celebrate the past while looking forward to the future.

Reviews

THE BOOK OF LIFE is produced by Guillermo del Toro, directed by Jorge Gutierrez, and features an outstanding voice cast to tell its story of true love (along with a generous helping of Mexican culture). The basic plot is about two boys, Joaquin (Diego Luna) and Manolo (Channing Tatum), who vie for the affections of a girl, Maria (Zoe Saldana). As people they're fairly opposite, with Manolo being a musician at heart (his family's profession is bullfighter) and Joaquin being a soldier who does great deeds of derring-do. Unbeknownst to them, however, Lady Muerte and Xibalba (Ron Perlman) have entered into a wager about which of them can win the heart of Maria and it sets Manolo on a journey that will take him to both realms of the dead. First, I should say that the character design, animation and overall look of the film was extremely creative and visually unique, befitting a Guillermo del Toro production. The colors popped and everything in the world of the film was brought to vibrant life. The voice cast was equally impressive, although there were a couple of people who took me out of it for a little bit before getting sucked back into the story. The biggest offender was probably Ice Cube, who voices the Candlemaker, although they did stick in a couple of good jokes and references for him. I also got taken a little bit out of the story by realizing that Danny Trejo and Cheech Marin also voiced characters in the film, but again, they still did great work here. Another high point was the music. The score was pretty good, but what really stood out was the use of modern pop songs in what is (mostly) a period piece set at an indeterminate time in the past. Of course, I didn't mind that one bit at all. I also thought that the first half to two-thirds of the story were excellent. It succeeded telling an emotionally moving story with plenty of interesting characters, but at a certain point it resorted to the standard climax and resolution that wrapped up everything with a nice little bow. And despite much of the humor working, at times I felt it was a little too silly for its own good. Still, at the end I was completely won over. Had I seen this last year, I'm fairly certain it would have made my top ten. As it stands, this was an incredibly charming and visually rich film that should appeal to kids and adults alike, and also serves as a valuable cultural lesson.

Finding Nemo

After his son is captured in the Great Barrier Reef and taken to Sydney, a timid clownfish sets out on a journey to bring him home.

Directors: Andrew Stanton, Lee Unkrich

Writers: Andrew Stanton (original story by), Andrew Stanton (screenplay), 2 more credits »

Stars: Albert Brooks, Ellen DeGeneres, Alexander Gould

Storyline

A clown fish named Marlin lives in the Great Barrier Reef loses his son, Nemo. After he ventures into the open sea, despite his father's constant warnings about many of the ocean's dangers. Nemo is abducted by a boat and netted up and sent to a dentist's office in Sydney. So, while Marlin ventures off to try to retrieve Nemo, Marlin meets a fish named Dory, a blue tang suffering from short-term memory loss. The companions travel a great distance, encountering various dangerous sea creatures such as sharks, anglerfish and jellyfish, in order to rescue Nemo from the dentist's office, which is situated by Sydney Harbor. While the two are doing this, Nemo and the other sea animals in the dentist's fish tank plot a way to return to Sydney Harbor to live their lives free again.

Reviews

Pixar Animation Studios has a very good knack for making thoughtful, intelligent and humorous family films (note that I didn't say kid films). "Toy Story" 1 & 2 and "Monsters, Inc." are some of my favorite family films; "Finding Nemo" isn't one of my favorites, but it isn't disappointing like "A Bug's Life," and it is thoughtful, intelligent, humorous and incredibly watchable, just like the other Pixar films.

As always, Pixar takes a world of something and completely builds their story around it. In "Toy Story" they gave life to toys and created the world through their eyes. In "Monsters, Inc.," they showed us the monster world. In my review on "A Bug's Life," I said that the reason the film didn't work very much is because it was about bugs, and not about something mystical like toys or monsters that bring back childhood memories. Well, I guess I was sorta wrong, because "Finding Nemo" is all about fish, nothing too mystical about fish, and I still loved it.

This tale takes place underwater with the fish Marlin (voiced by Albert Brooks), whose spouse and baby fish eggs get eaten by a vicious shark in the beginning. All but one egg which Marlin names Nemo.

Years later Nemo (voiced by Alexander Gould, Elliot's son?) is a bit older, and heading off to fish school for the first time. But haunted by the fact that his spouse and offspring were all killed years ago, Marlin is extremely over-protective of his one remaining family member. Nemo, sick of being treated like a baby, proves how brave he is by swimming near a fishing boat, only to be captured by a scuba-diving dentist. And so Marlin heads off to find Nemo, with the help of his newfound companion Dory (voice of Ellen DeGeneres), who has short-term memory loss and forgets things sooner than she can carry whatever she is doing out. (Like when she is showing Marlin the way towards a fishing boat and suddenly forgets why Marlin is following her.)

Pixar doesn't let down the audience on this film. There are a few things that one can always expect from Pixar films: They can expect something (such as toys) to be given their own world. They can expect that world to be given careful attention to detail. And they can expect humor.

"Finding Nemo" gives fish their own world, and the underwater realm they live in is paid careful attention, painstakingly captured on film with computer graphics. And the humor is always there. All the characters are funny. I especially like the sequences from the inside of a fish tank in the dentist's office, with a bunch of fish including Gill (Willem Dafoe's vocal talents), who constantly tries to escape. By doing so, Gill has suffered major injuries, including landing on the dentist's tools and getting sliced up. This is, of course, a parody of escaping POWs. The fact that Willem Dafoe was in the great war movie "Platoon" might have something to do with that.

This is taken from my "Monsters, Inc." review: "Pixar once again not only expands our mind, but our very worlds. I respect their company and commitment values very much, as you can read in my 'Toy Story' review. They stick to the values that made Disney films so family-friendly back in the fifties and sixties: Respect for the audience, respect for quality, and respect for the audience's INTELLIGENCE, something Disney, who has recently coughed up a bunch of lousy, thoughtless sequels, has forgotten. Now, I know that LEGALLY Disney is co-creator of 'Toy Story' and 'Monsters, Inc.,' but they really are not. They just give Pixar the money and get their name branded on the front box of the film. And even then, I have heard multiple claims that Disney is very mean-spirited towards Pixar (read into sequel trouble for 'Toy Story 3') and gives them the bare minimum.

With "Finding Nemo," I still stick towards what I said. Pixar Animation Studios is probably the best family film company out there right now, I really hope they separate from Disney some day and form their own production company. They know what interests both kids and adults, and it's almost creepy how they can make their films so engaging and fun to watch. This is one to take the kids to, and afterwards, maybe even sneak back into again by yourself.

Spirited Away

Spirited Away

During her family's move to the suburbs, a sullen 10-year-old girl wanders into a world ruled by gods, witches, and spirits, and where humans are changed into beasts.

Director: Hayao Miyazaki
Writer: Hayao Miyazaki
Stars: Daveigh Chase, Suzanne Pleshette, Miyu Irino

Storyline

Chihiro and her parents are moving to a small Japanese town in the countryside. much to Chihiro's dismay. On the way to their new home, Chihiro's father makes a wrong turn and drives down a lonely one-lane road which dead-ends in front of a tunnel. Her parents decide to stop the car and explore the area. They go through the tunnel and find an abandoned amusement park on the other side, with its own little town. When her parents see a restaurant with great-smelling food but no staff, they decide to eat and pay later. However, Chihiro refuses to eat and decides to explore the theme park a bit more. She meets a boy named Haku who tells her that Chihiro and her parents are in danger, and they must leave immediately She runs to the restaurant and finds that her parents have turned into pigs. In addition, the theme park turns out to be a town inhabited by demons, spirits, and evil gods. At the center of the town is a bathhouse where these creatures go to relax.

Reviews

Last year I saw Spirited Away on it's UK release. I've never been a particular fan of anime, and it didn't really occur to me that I was watching a foreign language film dubbed into English (or 'American'). I can't imagine seeing a live action foreign language film dubbed into another language, but hey, this is a kids cartoon, what does it matter? Up to a point it didn't, because I loved the film. I enjoyed it so much I set about digging up the Studio Ghibli/Miyazaki back catalogue, in the process Sprited Away was filed away as one of the lesser Ghibli's - still great, but compared to Laputa, Grave of the Fireflies and a few others, it seemed a little weak. 

BUT... I recently re-watched it on DVD with the subtitles and found the difference unbelievable. The film came alive like the other Miyazaki's I've seen. It seemed infinitely more layered, detailed, intelligent and witty than I remembered. Could it be that retaining the intended performances (even if the words are unintelligible) can make that much difference? Maybe the dub was just poorly done? Or was it just because I was now versed in the language of Ghibli? As a little experiment I decided to re-watch some of the film with both the English subtitles and English language dub in order to compare, I ended watching the whole thing out of morbid fascination. It's simply amazing what a difference there is. Entire scenes change. It's not just that subtle emphasis is shifted or the same points are made in a different manner - in the dub, the subject of whole conversations and scenes are changed, and often to some flat and uninteresting hokum. Relationships between characters are changed, their motivations and personalities are changed, the difference is shocking. 

I appreciate western, and particularly American audiences can be put off by subtitles. And cinemas are less likely to show the film anyway. It's pointless to be all righteous when, fundamentally, you just want people to see the film. Unless they do, this treasure trove will remain undiscovered, and maybe finding it will encourage people to conquer the 'subtitle demon' (as Miyazaki might call him). But the problem is the quality of these dubs, and the liberties taken with the source material. Of course, without speaking Japanese, who can say it's not the subtitles that are way off? They're probably written by westerners too. But the dub just stinks of Disneyfication. Saturday morning generic nonsense. The challenging, uncompromising and emotionally ambitious nature of the film is severely watered down.

A fair question might be, 'if it's so bad why was it so successful?' The success is evidence of the films staggering quality. Even so, it hardly challenged whatever Jerry Bruckheimer movie was showing at the time. In Japan it's the biggest grossing film in history. 'Go figure,' as Chihiro wouldn't say.