"Harry Potter & The Goblet Of Fire"

As with all global phenomenons, the Harry Potter movies were always going to be met with both scorn and praise in equal measures. Personally, I think they're great fun and people should be encouraged to see them.

The fourth instalment in the saga is, however, vastly superior to the preceeding three movies. Philosopher's Stone was hampered by the somewhat cringeworthy acting of the three main protagonists (except Ron, played by Rupert Grint, who I think nailed his character from the start) - Hermione (Emma Watson) was too melodramatic, and Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) was wooden, making me fear that they'd got a child version of Keanu Reeves to play the boy-wizard. Chamber Of Secrets upped the ante with slightly better acting, and better visuals. Prisoner Of Azkaban was when the series came into its own, really stepping out from the "children can't act properly" box, and the actors started getting things right. Hermione is still a little over-dramatic and prone to twitching when she should be emoting.

Goblet Of Fire cements the series as great. Acting from all has over-come most of the mannerisms that annoyed, and they all seem more comfortable in their roles. The adult actors (all of whom are of such high calibre, that it is impossible to find any fault in them) continue to amuse and enthrall, as they too have become more comfortable in their roles. Most noticeably, Alan Rickman is the perfect Professor Snape, one of the few global actors able to act an elipsis... He does have a surprisingly small role in this movie, though.

The story sticks predominantly to the Tri-Wizard championship - understandable, given the length contraints created by the goldfish-like concentrations of today's youth - cutting out a lot of the school work and general life at Hogwatrs. This time, however, a little more attention is paid to the hormonal inclinations of the characters - all of them get a love interest, though poor Ron is left to grumble as Hermione gets hitched to Bulgarian quidditch star, Victor Krum.

Again, the visuals are superb in every respect. The CGI is less cartoony, and Hogwarts Castle continues to change into an ever-grander form.

The story, considerably pared down from the novel, focusses primarily on the Tri-Wizard Tournament, and the tasks faced by Harry and his fellow competitors. Some great moments from the book are sadly missing - including Snape's zapping of the rose bushes to flush out cavorting pupils at the Yule Ball. But, despite this, the movie moves at a great pace, not seeming like 3 hours.

"Brothers Grimm"

This film was in parts disappointing and in others very rewarding.

Visually, The Brothers Grimm was superb. Terry Gilliam's become known for visually stunning movies and this recent romp into fairy tales is no exception. The atmosphere is gothic throughout, with strong colours.

Matt Damon (Wilhelm Grimm) and Heath Ledger (Jacob Grimm) do an admirable job, portraying the brothers as idealistic dreamers and conmen, yet keeping it real - they have sibling squabbles, and so forth. Heath Ledger in particular manages a good job, making Jacob slightly bumbling and oddball, without falling into complete farse.

This can not be said of the bad guys. Jonathan Pryce's Delatombe is ridiculous and overblown, making it difficult to watch this normally superior actor. Peter Stormare's Cavaldi is particularly irritating, and is exactly the type of person you just want to slap. Not good in a movie that is already dragging.

The attractive Lena Headey puts in a good performance as Angelika, though the regional accent was a bit of a novel idea. Monica Bellucci's performance as the Mirror Queen is interesting, and again completely over-acted, which ruins the character somewhat.

Overall, then, a visual feast, yet disappointing story despite the light comic antics of Wilhelm and Jacob.

The winding plot and dialogue left me somewhat perplexed at times, as the story deviated and curved in on itself seemingly in a way meant to bewilder the audience.

"Lord Of War"

This movie proved a big surprise. Following the trials and tribulations of Yuri Orlov (Nicholas Cage), a Brooklyn-based, second generation Ukrainian, as he enters the illegal global arms trade, providing corrupt African nations with the weapons they need to continue genocides against their own population.

Far from being an Amnesty International or other NGO-produced movie, Lord Of War looks at both sides of the argument, without making either look glamorous or the "right choice". Nothing about Yuri's job is portrayed as just and glorified, but neither is it wholly condemned as harshly as one might expect.

Ethan Hawke, as Agent Jack Valentine, provides Yuri's nemesis. His character is portrayed as an obsessively focussed agent, intent on bring down the illegal arms trade, and bringing Cage's character to justice. Ian Holm, who plays Simeon Weisz, a rival arms dealer, also puts in a great performance.

With an ending that is both satisfying and despairing, Lord Of War fails to fall into self-righteous preaching, at the same time as bringing to light one of the greatest crimes of this century and the futility felt by law enforcement that tries to curtail it. The ending script that comes up on screen before the final credits is somewhat damning and perhaps unnecessary, and the only time when the movie tries to point the finger directly at the UN Security Council, threatening the overall impact of the movie. It's good that this was kept to a minimum, though, otherwise the movie would just have devolved into a Liberal government-bashing piece.

One of the most impressive set pieces of the movie makes up the opening credits: the journey of a single bullet from creation to use. It's a very well put together, long sequence.

Far from being solely about the arms trade, Lord Of War is a detailed look into the characters of the people who get involved - Jared Leto's character in particular is in constant battle with his emotions and guilt, which eventually leads to his downfall, as his attempts to act as Yuri's conscience fall unheeded. Yuri's wife, Ava, struggles with the realities of her husband's job at the same time as not wishing to lose the comfort and luxury she has become accustomed to, eventually it gets too much for her, though.

This is definitely Nicholas Cage's movie, though. Cage plays his characters with exceptional aplomb; truly conveying the fastidious professionalism of Yuri. Be it his relationship with his wife, Ava Fontaine (the beautiful Bridget Moynahan), or his drug-addled, dysfunctional brother Vitaly Orlov (Jared Leto), Cage manages to inject realism and genuine feeling, making this one of his best roles in recent years - though, I personally didn't think he was that bad in National Treasure. Guilt, elation, greed, ambition, arrogance - all portrayed with equal skill and realism, as Yuri pursues his vocation, and deceives his family and friends.

Beautifully shot and written, the film traverses most of the globe, giving us exotic locales, the disease-ridden slums of Africa, high-rise glitz and glamour of New York rich and famous, and the quiet lower-class areas of Brooklyn.

"Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang"

As comedies go, this is fantastic. Instead of going for the purile, gross-out humour of American Pie and that ilk of teen-comedies, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is a higher calibre humour. Written by the man behind Lethal Weapon, Shane Black, the film manages to be laugh-out-loud funny and subtly humourous, as well as having a small dose of morality thrown in, complete with digs at the lives of the Hollywood rich and famous.

Unlike Black's other movies, there is less in the way of shooting action. Yes, there are guns, but nothing on the scale of the Lethal Weapon movies, which were very fond of huge explosions (and probably the inspiration for everything Jerry Bruckheimer has ever released). Dialogue plays a far more important part in this movie, with fewer visual jokes, and far more sarcasm! Both Downey Jr. and Kilmer have perfect timing with their traded jibes. As buddy-comedies go, this is a refreshing take on the formula Black essentially created.

The cast is superb. Robert Downey Jr., in particular, puts in a stellar performance as the mumbling, bumbling and ultimately hapless crook, Harry Lockhart, who also narrates the story in a bumbling, hapless, and disjointed way - at one point, halting the movie reel and rewinding to fill in a gap. Val Kilmer, as "Gay" Perry van Shrike, makes a great come-back to the big screen. Not that he's been away, just that he hasn't really been noticed by many people (hazards of playing Batman, I guess)... This role should help light a fire under his career again, and it is well deserved. The chemistry between the two leads is clearly excellent, and the jokes fly back thick and fast.

Harry's love interest, Harmony Faith Lane (Michelle Monaghan), is a wannabe actress who has succumbed to the hazards of Hollywood life. She is also a childhood friend, and Harry keeps trying to save her from herself.

As plots go, this is a strange one, but far from indecipherable as some reviewers have described it. It's actually pretty straight forward, but there are no false pretences about the plot being essential - it's more something to keep the jokes tied together. The humour is zany at times, and there is no attempt to constrain themselves within the strictures of political correctness, making the movie all the more essential.

Harry stumbles into a movie audition, fleeing the cops after a bungled robbery in a toy store, he gets offered a part as a private investigator. They hire Gay Perry, a real PI, to train him up. The movie's producer isn't exactly kosher, and Harry keeps getting involved with dead bodies. His attempt to interrogate someone with Russian Roullette is one of the funniest scenes in cinema. Harry also makes it his mission to save Harmony.

I don't want to spoil any of this film, so I shall leave it here, encouraging you to go and see this - quite possibly the best comedy of this year, with star turns from all involved. A must see movie.

"Chronicles Of Narnia - The Lion, The Witch, & The Wardrobe"

This was something of a disappointment.

Brought up with the original television production, I had high hopes that this would be as interesting and engrossing - complete update of a childhood favourite. Instead, I found the movie to be incredibly lacking.

Firstly, it is blatantly directed at children. Fair enough, but unlike the Harry Potter franchise, which gives the appearance of including something for the adults who are dragged along to watch it, Narnia has very little that won't make adults cringe and wonder when they can leave. At almost three hours long, this is one arduous film. One you'll probably find yourself cringing throughout.

Tilda Swinton, as Jadis the Witch Queen, is the single shining light in this whole production. Genuinely talented, her character exudes evil and elegance at the same time. She's the only convincing character. After that, it's the speaking beavers, which really says a lot about the human cast. The four kids are irritating in the extreme - especially Lucy, who seems incapable of actually acting, or realising that in a scene when you're running away from something that probably wants to kill you, it's best not to be grinning and giggling.

Speaking of Lucy, her first encounter with Mr Tumnus, a fawn, is incredibly suspect. Everything about his demeanour screams out predatory poedophile, which I am amazed slipped through the censors.

The plot, as it's based on the books, is hard to fault, if completely implausible. A young child's wet dream - being put in command of a fantasy army at the tender, completely inexperienced age of 15 (or whatever Peter's supposed to be), is an okay premise for some people to stomach, but I simply couldn't get on board.

The special effects look like cast-offs from the Lord Of The Rings, especially the castle at the end. The battle scene was perhaps the only scene that didn't have me wondering when it was all going to end! The CG cheetahs, hippogriff and minotaurs were pretty cool, but again paled in comparison with the denizens of Middle Earth.

This will undoubtedly reach the scale of success that Harry Potter has, simply because for every ticket sold, another will have to be sold for the parent (something a lot of people don't take into account, when comparing kiddie-movie to more adult movie sales), but I really don't think it's anywhere near as good.

A comment about the "overt Christian themes": not really. Only if you are specifically told about them will you really notice anything, and otherwise, themes of courage, self-sacrfice and so forth are common throughout the movie and fiction industries. So no, I don't dislike this movie because of any Christian undertones. I dislike it simply because it's not very enjoyable to sit through.