"Arthur" - rather unkindly nick-named "Wart" is a stable boy with grand ambitions. He wants to be the squire to a bold and chivalrous knight. Those plans are soon up in the air, though, when he has a chance encounter with "Merlin" in the forest and is soon the wizard's pet project. You see, the wise if scatty old man knows the true identity of the young man, and is determined to prepare him for what's to come. What now ensues isn't so much an Arthurian legend, more a compendium of fun and colourful escapades at "Wart", his boss "Sir Ector" and his scholarly tutor "Archimedes" have some messy and sometimes scary escapades. I quite enjoyed this. It's quickly paced and makes no bones about it's intention to entertain rather than do any educating of it's own! We've got suits of armour, dragons, magical dishwashers and, of course, "Madame Min" and the characterisations are engaging and mischievous. It's written with light-hearted comedy in mind, takes in easy on the moralising, and I found it a joyful production to watch for eighty minutes.

Decent watch, probably won't watch again, and can't recommend.
Now it's been a while since I've seen this one, and now I remember why. There just isn't anything in the well in which to return. Sure all the magic is amusing, and the animal adventures are cute, as well as a nice reminder of how good we have it as humans, but I really feel like we ruined that squirrel's life, and I'm sad about it.
The actual story of the sword in the stone is very short, because it's not interesting: it's all the adventures that Arthur has growing the kingdom, establishing rule over (what would be) England, and his adventures as an adult king (most of which were his knights') to include warring with neighbors.
While the jocks versus nerds analogy through the movie is interesting, it feels polarizing, and the message of education / knowledge is mixed throughout the movie. Future references to the (1963) present just dates the movie and aren't all that funny, and it tells the audience that just because you have knowledge, doesn't mean you can use it. Then in the 3rd act, we start a controversy over having knowledge / skills can be used to better or worsen things, and other than inspiring Star Wars, I don't know what the point of it was.
My favorite part was when Archimedes got to laugh: he seemed like he really needed it.

I hadn't seen this film since it was released when it was shown recently as a part of the Glasgow Youth Film Festival. The fact that it was chosen by the kids of today in what would have been just as unlikely a setting for this film as the North of England speaks volumes as to it's effect on challenging and breaking the stereotypical moulds that the British working class in the early 1980s was steeped in. The sylph-like "Billy" (the hugely engaging Jamie Bell) goes to boxing class each week but is soon more preoccupied by the adjacent dancing class of the no-nonsense "Mrs. Wilkinson" (Julie Walters) who gradually lets him join in. He's a bit scared that his dad (Gary Lewis) and his wayward brother "Tony" (Jamie Draven) will find out so it has to all be a bit clandestine. It's only when his striking miner father finds out from the boxing coach that "Billy" is spending his 50p elsewhere that a confrontation ensues and the film steps up a gear. The characterisations are strong and are not frightened to evolve - but not in a simplistic A+B=C fashion. There are troubles and traumas - not least those faced by a father who struggles with his own emotions; is facing financial difficulties, a wayward older son and a younger one who wants to dance and hangs about with best pal "Michael" (another strong effort from Stuart Wells) who is quite clearly gay. Walters and Bell and Bell and Lewis work well together here; allowing the story to emerge naturally and energetically and as feel-good films go, this takes some beating. It's the ultimate "anyone can do" film that resonates as well now as it did then - only, maybe, the soundtrack needs a bit of updating! Great film this - and there's even a tiny bit of Adam Cooper at the end.

I didn't have much expectations for this movie but it was enjoyable enough. Maybe it has some holes that were created to appeal the action movies viewer. I also "borrows" without shame from "Princess Mononoke" and other movies but, as a whole, it is decent enough.

I had some expectations on this movie. Samurai’s, fantasy, magic etc… Sounds good to me alright. Well, as it turned out after having watched it I feel that my expectations was not entirely fulfilled. It is a decent enough movie. Certainly enjoyable to watch. But it is, in my opinion, not a great move and I cannot give it more than an average okay rating.
I have not read the original story which the movie is, supposedly, based nor seen any of the other 47 Ronin movies that have been made. Thus I did not really know what the story was except what was the public storyline nor do I know if the movie actually follows the original story in any great detail. The basic story in the movie is a good one though. Classic, simple and perhaps not very original but a good concept for making a good adventure movie.
The movie is entertaining…to an extent. There are plenty of nice scenes, action, special effects that all make the movie worthwhile to watch. The Japanese, samurai, setting is one that is not used very often in major movies except of course for a bunch of fairly ludicrous martial arts movies which cater for a rather limited audience and generally on a very low-budget.
However, I never really felt much attachment to any of the characters. Even the half-breed, which are supposed to be the hero, never seemed to lift above the ordinary. The bad guy could have been any two-bit crook in a TV-show. The witch was a bit better but still rather meh. The Shogun at least provoked a bit of emotions but not in a good way. What an asshole! Not a shred of investigation when Lord Asano was bewitched. Just “go kill yourself”. Then after the 47 Ronins had actually proven his innocence as well as proven themselves to be the most loyal and capable warriors around the dumb fuck wants them killed because they disobeyed his orders which where total nonsense from the start. As a matter of fact, the ending dragged down the movie quite a lot for me.
Still a movie worth watching but it could have been a lot better.

**_Hitler’s end_**
As the Red Army encroaches upon Berlin in late April, 1945, the final days of Hitler in his bunker (Bruno Ganz) are told from the perspective of his secretary, Traudl Junge (Alexandra Maria Lara).
"Downfall” (2004) is not a conventional war movie due to its downbeat subject and is more educational than entertaining, but it’s a necessary piece of the puzzle in understanding WW2. If you appreciate movies like "Enemy at the Gates" (2001), "The Pianist" (2002), "Black Book" (2006), "Valkyrie" (2008), "Rommel" (2012), "Warsaw '44" (2014) and "Fury" (2014), you’ll appreciate this one too.
It's hard to rate a flick like this because it’s not an enjoyable experience, but it works superbly as means to go back in history and view Hitler’s final days.
The film runs 2 hours, 36 minutes, and was shot in Germany (Berlin, Munich and Bavaria Studios) and Russia (St. Petersburg).
GRADE: B

I'd have to be pretty stupid to write a book about killing and then kill him the way I described in my book. I'd be announcing myself as the killer. I'm not stupid.
Basic Instinct is directed by Paul Verhoeven and written by Joe Eszterhaz. It stars Michael Douglas, Sharon Stone, George Dzundza, Jeanne Tripplehorn, Denis Arndt and Leilani Sarelle. Music is scored by Jerry Goldsmith and cinematography by Jan de Bont.
Nick Curran (Douglas) of the SFPD is strung out and under investigation by Internal Affairs, last thing he needs is to be drawn into a dangerous relationship with a sex crazed blonde who may be a murderess...
Time hasn't been kind to Verhoeven's soft-core porn thriller, where once was shock and awe killings (the film opening with a brutal mini ice-pick murder), steamy love scenes and a famed and controversial crotch shot, now is ludicrous orgasms, iffy effects and Michael Douglas' unappetising ass! Hell there was even protests during the film's initial theatre run as the gay community went up in arms about the portrayal of bisexuals possibly being mad murderers?
Yet for all of its taming over the years, Basic Instinct can at least now been seen as the hugely efficient mystery thriller that it is, one that is propelled by some very good performances by the principal actors. The strength in the story is not in the sex or blood, but in the character arcs of Nick Curran and Catherine Tramell (Stone). Curran is a man perched on the edge of doom who is controlled totally by the women around him. He is by definition a quintessential film noir protagonist, in so deep he ultimately will be resigned to his fate. Catharine Tramell is a ultimate femme fatale, beautiful and seductive, she's always in control, leading all male characters where she wants them to go. There's a delicious kink to the narrative, with Verhoeven gleefully pulling the strings, a smirk no doubt etched onto his face.
This is very good story telling, with a plot of substantial twists and turns. True, it does carry some soft-core baggage that can steer the restless away from the character strengths within, but for the neo-noir crowd there is much to enjoy here. 7.5/10

Controversy aside, in regards both to Sharon Stone's quintessentially-provocative noirish femme fatale (talk about a queen bee or alpha female!) and the backlash that the film portrayed lesbians as crazed psychos, Verhoeven both played a striking tribute to Sir Alfred Hitchcock, particularly San Francisco's based Vertigo and in use of the blonde bombshell, and simply continued his style of storytelling that had become his trademark in his pre-Hollywood, formative days in the Netherlands. Though it's not mentioned in the interviews of either star or director, the wonderful car chase brought to mind that 'other' car chase Frisco Bay movie, 'Bullitt'. But given the remarkable landscape of the area, why not? One would be a fool not to push the stylistic envelope as far as the censors will allow. A film that would have made The Master of Suspense proud, methinks, and one that he himself perhaps would have done, had Joe Eszterhas' very fun script been around, during, say, the time of 'Frenzy', when Hitchcock was at his cheekiest. A fantastic date movie too, by the way...

Very clever thought out movie. So funny I can't help but like this movie. One is trying to make her fall in love in days, and the other one is trying to make him break up with her in 10 days.

**I would be bold enough to say if you don’t like this film, it’s because you hate joy… that’s dramatic, but still, it’s a good movie.**
How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days is the gold standard of RomComs. Charming leads, quirky characters, a ridiculous but fun premise, drama, character growth and development, and romance all crammed into a wonderful film that is worth watching again and again. McConaughey and Hudson’s chemistry elevates this 2003 RomCom from typical to delightful and was so great they reunited for a second film (Fools Gold. Not great, but still.) While its 2003 release slightly dates it, and the movie’s concept is a little more complicated than the average RomCom, How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days is exceptionally satisfying due to its stellar cast, hilarious antics, and awkwardly entertaining dating commentary.

**An unoriginal, occasionally predictable film, but one that stands out for its effectiveness and for its commitment to solutions that are convincing or, at least, functional.**
This weekend was definitely dedicated to Alaska here at home. With this film, I saw two whose action takes place in this frigid North American state. However, the best was undoubtedly this one: not only does it have a very convincing story, it also features Liam Neeson in an extraordinary dramatic performance.
Directed by Joe Carnahan, the film is an effective survival thriller, taking into account all the qualities it presents to us and the enormous amount of rubbish that abounds in this cinematic sub-genre. It's not original, we know how difficult this is today. However, it is effective, and that is already something significant. The script starts well, introducing us to a series of characters that are not very recommendable and not worthy of sympathy, very similar to mercenaries, and introduces the danger in a convincing way through a plane crash, which only a handful of people survive. lucky people who soon become aware of the neighborhood of a pack of ferocious wolves.
In addition to providing us with a very well modeled tension and a sense of danger that makes us pay our full attention to what we are seeing, the film features Liam Neeson in yet another truly solid and committed effort. The actor is one of the safest for the roles of tough guys and anti-heroes, he has done this many times and has a track record that is enviable for any actor, so expectations were high, and he knew how to rise to the challenge. Unfortunately, I felt that the rest of the cast is not at all capable of keeping up with him, and I think it goes without saying that several character deaths are so idiotic that they become unbelievable.
The film has good production values and relies heavily on good filming and snowy landscapes, which seems to be common for films set in Alaska. It is not irrelevant to say that filming largely took place in real locations and not inside studios, and that the cast and crew really experienced the intense cold that the film leaves us feeling. Good sets and good effects make up a visually beautiful and generally well-executed film.

**_Go out fighting (and believing)_**
Liam Neeson stars as the quasi-leader of seven misfit Alaskan oil workers who survive a plane crash in the wilderness. As if this isn't bad enough, a pack of territorial wolves want to take them out. Will they survive?
Released in January 2012, "The Grey" is a somber survival flick filled with primal reflections on death and faith. The trailer is misleading in that it advertises the movie as an action film, but that's not the case at all. Although there is some action, this is a grave, dreary adventure with raw meditations about the will to live or die and more -- God.
It's not as good as 1997's "The Edge," "Flight of the Phoenix" or "Sands of the Kalahari," the latter two from 1965, mainly because it's so funereal and seemingly empty, but it's unique and worthwhile.
Some complain that the story's unbelievable, like the wolves and the jump from the cliff, but movies (or certain things in them) aren't always meant to be taken literally and aren't supposed to be realistic as filmmakers are more concerned with aesthetics, psychology, metaphors and conveying ideas; and that's the case with "The Grey." The survival story is merely a stage.
Which brings us to another common complaint, that the film's ultimately pointless, which simply isn't the case. Now you may not like the story or the points that it conveys, but it's not pointless. See my interpretation below, if interested.
The film runs 1 hour, 57 minutes, and was shot in Smithers, British Columbia.
GRADE: B
**MY INTERPRETATION** (Read only if you've seen the film)**:**
Ottway (Neeson) is in a horrible state of grief after the passing of his beloved wife as he protects oil workers by shooting wolves that get too close to the camp. Depressed, he decides to commit suicide but before he can pull the trigger a wolf howling in the distance strangely prevents him. I believe the howling wolf was the Creator's way of speaking to Ottway and giving him a chance to go out fighting; and not just that, go out _believing_ as well, even if it's belief in its rawest form.
The next day Ottway finds himself surviving a plane crash in the wilderness with six other men. In contrast to his near-suicide attempt, his survival instincts kick-in and he finds himself doing everything he can to survive, for himself and the others. Do you see the irony? The night before he desperately wanted to die and a mere day later he's doing everything in his power to live and save others.
The topic of God and faith comes up at a campfire. A couple of the guys believe, but Diaz naturally mocks such things. Ottway says he doesn't believe either, but wishes he could.
Later in the story, Ottway finds himself the sole survivor and at the end of his rope. Cursing, he passionately cries out to the Almighty for succor, but the heavens remain mysteriously silent. Regardless, he musters the strength to (try to) carry on. Shortly later, while reflecting on the men and their loved ones who died, he seems to clasp his hands in prayer and the Alpha wolf appears and challenges him. Unlike a few days ago when he was going to kill himself, he goes out fighting and, even more important, believing.
For those who argue that Ottway didn't believe, remember that he was praying when he was crying out to God. Yes, it was a prayer of desperation and rage, but prayer nevertheless. Job did the same thing in the bible. The utterly humbling situation drove Ottway to his Creator and compelled him to go out fighting. It was God's gift. The Almighty knew Ottway better than Ottway knew himself.

I can't believe it took me so long to get around to watching _The Grey_.
What a ride. Don't know that it's realistic but damn it was good. Put me in that wolf pack. Would I be instantly dismembered? Sure, but you get that on the big jobs.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

I am amazed by how many people on IMDb that have given this movie 8, 9 and even 10 stars. It’s perhaps not the worst movie I’ve seen but it is in no way worth that kind of rating.
The good part of the movie is Liam Neeson who makes an enjoyable performance with the script that he was given. He is pretty much the reason that I gave it as much as 4 IMDb stars. The rest of the film is just plain wrong.
My first impression is, god this director likes film grain! Now this is a matter of taste of course but I don’t like when movies have artificially been made to look like they were filmed on old and crappy film. It has its places but it didn’t add anything here.
The film starts off with a plane crash which is not done very good. Neither in terms of special effects nor in terms of realism.
The lack of realism, unfortunately, continues throughout the movie. The behavior of the wolves is utterly unnatural and unrealistic. I can live with this if it’s a horror movie or some other fantasy movie but this is not supposed to be that. The actual footage of the wolves is rather mediocre as well.
Then there is this so called experienced hunter and “wolf expert”. Leaving the crash site is a dubious decision to say the least. Then we got the jumping of cliffs with a flimsy home made rope instead of just walking a bit further to get down not to mention making ammunition go off by poking wooden sticks at it, what the f…? In addition the guy knows nothing about wolves, or any other wild animal for that matter.
Just to add to this not so enjoyable experience, the film has an utterly lousy ending.

'The Croods: A New Age' makes for a good sequel.
I didn't mind the original from 2013 (that long ago, eh?), I found it passable but did have to watch a recap video before watching this entry as I remembered absolutely nothing; aside from the first few scenes. I guess that's to be expected given the time gap, albeit I don't think I watched the first film until around 2019.
This one offers up enough entertainment, it does feature a type of story that is rather predictable but I think all the shenanigans keep it ticking along nicely and the voice cast are all very good. Nicolas Cage, Emma Stone and Ryan Reynolds (feels odd to see a Reynolds character not truly front and centre) reprise their roles well, as Leslie Mann and Peter Dinklage make for strong additions.
All in all, a worthy follow-up - I'd place it on the same level as its predecessor, to be honest.

Somewhat nomadic after the conclusion of their 2013 adventure, the caveman "Croods" are still searching for a place to call home. It's not just the quest that intrepid leader "Grug" must manage, he's also got the constantly hormonal "Eep" and "Guy" to contend with too! Anyway, they stumble upon a positively Elysian land of lush green grass, waterfalls - and bananas - and that's where they encounter the pretty supercilious "Betterman" family. They'd be the posh "Flintstones" with all the bamboo mod cons - even the original picture window! It's soon clear, though, that these two families are facing a bit of a culture clash and as tempers mount, "Grug" commits an unmentionable sin - and they are descended upon by a marauding gang of punch monkeys determined to feed them all to their Kong-esque king. Now they must but aside their trivial differences and work together else they will all end up as banana fritters! It's quite a fun little adventure film, this. It pokes fun at vanity and intolerance, keeps the story simple and engaging enough before an ending that, though predictable, reminds us of the values of working together rather than apart. The animation is standard, high-end, Dreamworks fayre and it's entertainingly scripted passing ninety minutes effortlessly.

With cinemas starving for content - especially family content these school holidays - 'The Croods: A New Age' is your best bet. It's the perfect holiday escape for the whole family, with big laugh-out-loud moments, epic fight sequences, and of course a great message about getting along and working together.
- Chris dos Santos
Read Chris' full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-the-croods-a-new-age-a-fun-family-prehistoric-escape

I got sucked into this movie and i liked it. It was different. I started this movie cause i couldnt find the remote so i watched this and it was good. Even had Lizard ppl. I'll give it a 7 out of 10.

First of all, it's not for everyone. It might seem repetitive, too long or stupid at times. However, it's worth a shot merely because of it's visuals and the constant intrigue whether the protagonist is to believed or not. The so-called 'plot holes' in the movie are open to interpretation and thought and never bothered me. The ending could have been cut short, but it's a reminder that perhaps there are no good guys here. Seems to be a product of another era, perhaps too ambitious for its own good.

**The mysteries behind a misty mountain fortress!**
Seems the films of this director won't survive without Johnny Depp in the lead. Just one good film would change that conception. Is this the one! No, but was very close. After seeing the film I thought it could be based on the novel, but isn't. The writers must be good to create such atmosphere, outside the novel. I was very impressed with the film, though the screenplay lagged the pace. And a few things need to be explained where the narration failed to do so, keeping in mind the average intelligent people. Other than that it is a decent mystery-drama associated with fantasy and sci-fi.
Due to a financial crisis in the firm, a young New Yorker goes to the Swiss Alps looking for his boss. At first he struggles to make a contact with him as the staffers are not friendly. After an unexpected incident, he has to stay a bit longer. In those periods, he comes to realise there's something wrong with the place, hence decides to uncover. Does he really do it! His struggles in the attempt and everything else were told in the remaining part.
Somewhat it reminded me 'Perfume: The Story of a Murderer'. Not until you finish watching it or figure it out the puzzle. Then the BG score was too cliché for such concept, but nothing can be replaced it. The film had a good opening. Even the mid part. But dragged in the latter section. The overall length of the film was another drawback for the narration.
There were no empty scenes, everything's were filled with something, but the end twist was not as phenomenal as promised in the earlier developments. Especially if you had seen a handful of similar masterpieces. It was kind of an old concept, like the pre 80s or something. Yet acceptable at present for being rare. Thus, it depends how well it was made. An above average film, but for those who haven't seen many films in their lives, this will be a great one.
_6/10_

_A Cure for Wellness_ is most certainly not going to be for everyone. It's spectacularly, deliberately, uncomfortably ugly (albeit, in a bizarrely beautiful way). It's story is flawed, it's long (two and a half hours all told), it's slow, some of its setups don't evolve into payoffs, it's not half as mysterious or clever as it might think it is, and it can't even hold to its own mythology 100%. But I loved it.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

My goodness! Two and a half hours of absolute drivel. The worst movie I have seen in a long time. The list of things that are wrong with this movie are almost too many to list.
First the good: the makers of this movie have obviously paid a lot of attention and have gone to a lot of trouble in the design of the movie. The location and the settings are stunning. The 'spa' where the story takes place is suitably unsettling and creepy. The music also is a highlight. That's where the good ends, unfortunately.
The plot of this movie is an absolute mess. It seems the producers weren't sure what they were going for: Gothic horror? Dark and quirky? Straight out frightening? As a result, the finished product is none of these things. The movie swings from one improbable scenario to another. New plot elements are introduced with no relation to what has gone before. Several times the movie arrives at what seems to be a conclusion before picking itself up, introducing a hitherto unreferenced, unrelated, unnecessary and unlikely plot 'twist' and then lurching on its demented way. It's almost as if the makers finished the movie and then someone thought of something else to include - often borrowed from another, better movie - and they tacked it on the end. The movie seems interminable. Its two and a half hour run time could have been shortened by an hour and resulted in a somewhat enjoyable story.
It also doesn't help that the denouement is pretty obvious quite early in the piece or that certain of the plot elements are not really explained properly or that none of the characters are likeable or worthy of the viewer's sympathy or that most of the tension is provided by the music, not by the story or acting.
In short, if you're looking for a good evening's entertainment look elsewhere. This ain't it.

The movie did a great job with atmosphere and mood for sure but the hollow plot devices, shaky motives, nonsensical 'science' and the burden set upon me to suspend disbelief against all odds makes it one that I cannot recommend.
It is unfortunate that they did not have a more experienced or capable writer to consult before moving ahead. I think the right person may have been able to untangle this knot of a script.
All other elements were well done and I could feel the tension and sense of isolation grow throughout the film. They did so much right that it is a terrible shame that, ultimately, it went so wrong.

'Spring Breakers'... deary me. An absolutely terrible movie! It plays out like it is attempting to be a parody of these sorta sex-infused crime movies, but as far as I can tell it's an actual attempt at one - which means it's simply cringe all the way through.
There isn't much to say about the cast, given their and the film's low quality. James Franco is rubbish, one of the worst parts I've seen portrayed. The characters of Vanessa Hudgens, Selena Gomez, Ashley Benson and Rachel Korine just go round in circles, practically.
It's a movie that attempts to show an aesthetic and tries to leave a deeper meaning. I can't personally believe that it could actually be interpreted like that, but evidently some people do see it as a success in those areas so, I guess, fair enough. For me, it's just awful.
I'll give it praise for a single scene: the one with Britney Spears' "Everytime" playing over it, that was actually fairly well done. See, I'm not a total hater.

This movie had such great potential. If it just followed the compelling short description of the movie, instead of making that short description nearly EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS IN THE MOVIE, it would be intriguing. This was the most tedious, redundant and gratuitous movie I've seen in a very long time. I expected the gratuitous ... it opened with an extended "Girls Gone Wild" sequence. But then it showed that sequence again, and again and again, then again, and again and again! This would be a "one-star" without James Franco. Once he is introduced you are captivated by his transformation into a wannabe gangsta rapper, especially given his tame, Disney-esque acting in "Oz, the Great and Powerful." But then the tedious redundancy corrupted even his performance. The cinematography is interesting but with little plot and the unrelenting repetitiveness, even that became another irritant. If they removed all of the redundant scenes I think the movie would have been 30 minutes long.

This has the best intro to a movie I have ever seen. I'm sure we all have thought about a disaster on a roller coaster at some point in our lives. When we are about to get on a roller coaster. It's a messed up thing to see but it's awesome to see it in this movie.

***Decent, but now formulaic entry in this 'Dead Teenager' series***
The first "Final Destination" movie in 2000 was a rather innovative 'Dead Teenager Movie' in that the killer was Death itself, as an invisible spirit. A group of people, mostly teens, escape a great tragedy due to a premonition of one of them and the rest of the movie involves the Grim Reaper systematically slaying the kids who cheated Death in various creative ways, usually an unlikely chain of events. The opening tragedy in the first film was a plane crash, in the second it's a horrible highway pile-up while in this third entry it's a rollercoaster mishap.
All of the movies in the five-film franchise tell the same basic story with different characters and minor nuances; all of them are of the same high quality of technical filmmaking. Whether you prefer one or another depends on your preference for cast members and the death sequences (and the locations). Other than these factors they're all basically the same.
Released in 2006, "Final Destination 3" has a quality doe-eyed heroine or 'final girl' in Mary Elizabeth Winstead. There are some other worthy female cast members, like Alexz Johnson, Chelan Simmons, Crystal Lowe and Amanda Crew. These five ladies represent perhaps the best assortment of women in the series yet.
While it’s true that you know exactly how this film plays out if you've seen the first two installments, or any of them, there are some highlights beyond the female cast. For instance, the rollercoaster accident is thrilling and rings true in light of real-life mishaps at amusement parks. There’s also a horrifying tanning booth death sequence, which was done better in “Urban Legends: Bloody Mary” from the previous year (2005). Another death scene occurs at a warehouse where two of the protagonists work. I also liked how an extended sequence outside the teens’ school takes place in the rain, which shows attention to detail (or making the best of a rainy day during shooting, whatever).
For me, what makes these movies kinda dull is the fact that it's impossible to cheat Death. Sure, you can escape it here or there, but Death's been in business for millennia and expertly knows what he's doing. As such, everyone's gonna die except maybe the 'final girl,' who will most probably die in the sequel.
In case you’re interested, there's an interesting 20-minute documentary about "Dead Teenager Movies" on the 'extras' disk with Roger Ebert being a highlight.
The film runs 93 minutes and was shot in the Vancouver area, as were all the Final Destination flicks, except the fourth one.
GRADE: C+/B-

In short, not a very exciting movie. It was not at all as good as the previous ones. Not that this was very surprising of course since the general consensus on the web seems to be that 1 & 2 are quite good, 3 & 4 not so much while the 5th is supposed to be back in shape.
Unfortunately, in this 3rd installment it seems that the producer took some shortcuts and produced the all to common teenage splatter movie. That is, do not bother about spending time on a decent script nor any acting capabilities to talk about. Replace all that with some wiggling boobs and behinds to appeal to the not too intelligent part of the teenage movie going audience, kill of a few of the bearers of said boobs and behinds at regular intervals in an increasingly goory and spectacular way and you’re done.
I kind of like the goory and violent bit, it’s supposed to be a horror movie after all, but I would prefer that it was strung together in something that at least can be said to be semi-intelligent way. Well, you cannot have a film collection if you do not have all the films in a series can you? So I cannot say that I regret buying the set but I do not think this one will go up on the films to re-watch list any time soon.

Roller Toaster.
Final Destination the series moves into its third instalment without really changing the formula that was working for it. Here the opening disaster involves a Roller Coaster crash that is brought via a premonition to Wendy Christensen (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). As in the previous two films, the visionary and some friends get spooked and get off the coaster to find it actually does crash and a bunch of horrific deaths befall all those on board. Sure enough the survivors start being killed off in equally gruesome ways, it becomes apparent that the old grim reaper is out to claim the deaths that were denied him.
The opening section of FD3 is superb, the credits roll to a back drop of various carnival/fairground attractions that offer up foreboding terror, all backed by an eerie rumbling musical score. Then the crash itself is excellently stage, so much so that anyone frightened of Roller Coasters can point to this as a reason why! Then we revert to type, the youthful cast get bumped off in more ingenious ways, with more gore and lashings of dark humour pumped up this time (the use of Love Roller Coaster by The Ohio Players is genius). The narrative drive this time involves photographs, which is a nice touch and overcomes the triteness of some dialogue exchanges.
It's a safe entry in the series, and it boasts in Winstead the best young lead actress of the whole franchise. As with all horror films - franchises, some will love it and some will hate it, but ultimately it really does exactly what the previous two films did. So if a fan of those then this does a good job as well. The 2 disc DVD comes with a delightful choose their fate option, which with a bit of playing around gives you a slightly different version of the film. While it is recommended you turn up your home cinema systems for the Roller Coaster segments. 7/10

There is something a little "True Grit" about this - not because the script is good; nor the scenery, score or acting - but that a star is daring to look old and "lived-in" and for that Stallone deserves praise. The film itself is a very slow burn as it focusses initially on the activities of his feisty but naive neice 'Gabriela" (Yvette Monreal) as she gets embroiled with a Mexican drug/whoring cartel that means he has to go risk life and limb to recover her and fend off their pursuers. It's all a bit too procedural, though the last 20 minutes or so do bring back a bit of the gung-ho flair of their predecessors with loads of pyrotechnics and bodies flying. It is short and sweet but I'm sure I'll never remember it.