Set in the 1920's Roy Walker (Lee Pace from Pushing Daisies, and nothing to do with Catchphrase) is in a hospital on the outskirts of Los Angeles. Roy while filming on his latest movie took place in a stunt that has now landed him in a hospital run by the church, incapable of feelings from the waist down. At that same hospital is Alexandria (Catinca Untaru)a very young girl suffering with a broken arm; one day while walking through the hospital her path crosses Roy's who tells her an amazing fact about Alexander The Great. Overwhelmed by his tale, Alexandria agrees to return the following day when Roy will tell her of a story set in a faraway place, but one that has a suspiciously familiar ring about it. For Alexandria this is a friendship with a man who could be a substitute father, for Roy his reason for striking up this relationship is far less innocent, he has an agenda and Alexandria is a pawn in his game.

I should begin by saying there is nothing of a sexual nature to Roy's intentions to Alexandria, this is very far from his mind. As you watch the movie you slowly get to understand what he wants from Alexandria, while being fairly innocent it is tragic, you can see that clearly Alexandria needs a father and as most of the movie is set in images from her head, you soon realise that Roy is the only man that can fill that role.

While the real world that the story is anchored in is set in normal surroundings, it's what happens when Roy and Alexandria when they start imagining the story Roy tells that sets this movie alight. Tarsem Singh (known in credits simply as Tarsem) is an Indian director best associated with the world of commercial and music video work. Tarsem should have come to the attention of the world back in 2005 when he was the original Director assigned to make the movie Constantine, Warner recruited him for his incredible eye for detail. But when Sony Pictures approached Tarsem with The Fall, it was something that the director could not resist, dropping (rather wisely in my opinion) the weaker Constantine for The Fall. Tarsem does indeed have an eye for beauty and wonder, and nothing would tell you otherwise when watching The Fall. If you are not blown away by the sheer majesty of this movie then sadly you had better get on to the hospital because you do not have a pulse.

I really cannot put into words how wonderful this movie looks; it looks so fantastic and in a world where computer generated effects are used in pretty much every movie you cannot believe that none were used here. From the colours, to locations that literally look out of this world; everything visually about this movie is just breathtaking. From the magnificent structures that have sat for thousands of years, to gloriously designed hedgerows. Tarsem uses some of the worlds man made wonders and completely reinvents them. A race across the top of The Great Wall Of China, which you would only know was the Great Wall if you swotted up on it. But it's not just the sights that are familiar and re-imagined, it's also the sights you have never seen that really create the icing on this movies cake; you would indeed need to be a world traveller to identify many of the sights seen in this movie. But it's not just the locations that are striking, it's the costumes, the make-up, and the unique cast that make this an experience like nothing you have ever seen before.

While visually you have not seen anything like The Fall, the story as not quite as satisfying. The story which for the most part is told from the mouth of Roy and imagined in the head of Alexandria follows the trails of movies like The Neverending Story. But don't go getting excited that this might be another great family movie; because while the movie seems like a fairly standard piece of family viewing, suddenly 30 minutes before the movies end things suddenly get much more adult, and brutally so. As is the case with all great adventure movies along the way there are casualties, and as Roy's alter ego The Bandit in the second story leads his motley crew of geniuses, explosives experts, shaman, and warriors through a sprawling landscape some must die.

Rather than allowing the time honoured tradition of killing one or two per quarter of the movie, the deaths occur as the movie draws to a conclusion, and these deaths are borderline horrific. One of The Bandit's crew is butchered to death with axes, while birds fly from his mouth; you suddenly are teleported from beauty to horror at the movie takes a stark transition becoming more like Alejandro Jodorowsky's The Holy Mountain. And then as quickly as the horror raises its head it movies back do to innocent adventure style story telling. It's very hard to understand where The Falls target audience is, and this makes the story a touch disjointed, movie the film away from the mainstream to something more along the lines of Cult. In fairness, the storyline regardless of confusion, is a little bit lacking and for most of it I never really knew what was going on completely, but it hardly matters the biggest story is in the visual feast before you.

The movies warriors, a group of masked soldiers that make noises that cross between a dog and a crying child provide one of the most unpleasant bad armies of all time in my opinion. Ruthless in their assaults they have no time for hostages, cut off their heads and ask questions later. Their systematic execution of The Bandits men towards the end literally highlights this.

The performances in the movie are pretty good, with the exception of Lee Pace and the odd familiar star most of the movies cast are complete unknowns, some never having acted before. Its Catincu Untaru who really shines here, this Romanian actress does not speak a word of English, yet she delivers her lines (in a language she did not understand) with a quirkiness that really endears the actress. As an inexperienced actress and naive to the way of movies she was allegedly mortified when she discovered that Pace was not actually a paraplegic.

Be Original

Just because one animated animal movie did well doesn't mean we need ten more of them, unless you have a new take (and I mean new take not just a new setting) on it don't even bother save your time and try to think of something different that hasn't been done yet or at least hasn't been done that recently.

Know Your Audience

Too many films today don't know who there audience are and try to do something that appeals to everyone but while this may make you some money on release you'll find it in the bargain bin by next year. By knowing your audience you can tune your film to them making it more likely to join the classics such as Dirty Dancing, IT, Grease and Halloween that are still loved decades after their release. These film knew who they were aimed and didn't pretend to be more than they were that's what makes them great!

No Remakes

Ok enough with the remakes already I'm tired of watching films and tv shows I loved as a child be butchered by remakes that can never capture the film way that the original did, especially those that change vital parts like the characters nationality! (wickerman)

Make Sequels Relevant

Make sequels relevant to the film they are following while continuing to have their own plot. My reason for saying this is I watched the sequel to House On Haunted Hill the other night as I had loved the first one and it went off 'the statue is possessed and causes evil' theme which ruined it. I can think of much better plots for a sequel.

Get Back To Basics

While CGI is great in the right places you don't need to go overboard with it to show what a big budget your film has. I've seen some good horrors that would have been better had the monsters not been so obviously done by computer (I am Legend). Classics like Nightmare on Elm Street, IT and King Kong didn't need it so why do we now?

Know Your History

If your film is part of a series or based on a tv show or book make sure you stick to its history and everything that has come before it especially if your film is likely to appeal to a particular audience. Some big names film brands could get away with trying something new but recently I heard about the "new Star Trek" if it can be called that. I don't think a single one of them has watched an episode of the show and it shows in the plot, unfortunately for them the way I see it, the fact that it deviates so wildly from everything Trek is about will put the Trekkies off and everyone else is put off my the fact its Star Trek so it will bomb! Think your ideas through!

Think things through

As I said above thing things through especially thinking about your most likely audience, annoy them are your in trouble. Also check your films for plot holes or inconsistencies, in Return to House on Haunted Hill there seemed to be a lot of light coming from supposedly locked down windows shut off by metal covers. Also the those who saw the first one will remember that at the remaining characters found the checks for five million so can you explain to me why in the second one the character is living in a cramped dingy house.

This success soon fell into the ears of producers and companies all over Hollywood. Between 1995 and 2000 people were queuing to see the next computer generated film by Pixar, each one becoming more detailed and realistic than the last. These included A Bugs Life (1998) and Toy Story 2 (1999). Pixar was and still is the leading film production company specializing in computer generated movies each time amazing us with their ability to create realistic fur or lifelike water.

Other companies soon joined the bandwagon (as they always do in Hollywood) Pixar's parent company Disney was the first to give CGI a go with their 2000 film Dinosaur, unfortunately it could not garner the same success as Pixar.

The second company to produce a successful CG film was DreamWorks Animations' Shrek in (2001) making more than $260 million in the USA alone. The film was so successful it has produced two successful sequels, a 4-D short and a Christmas special short with a fourth feature in the pipeline as well as a spin off.

It seemed that any company could prove to be successful in this medium.

20th century Fox (being ones never to be left out) decided to join in and produced the prehistoric film Ice Age earning more than $170 million dollars in the USA making a clear profit on its $59 million budget. It was also followed by a sequel with another announced.

Other attempts came along from DreamWorks (Shark Tale, Madagascar, Over the Hedge) and Fox (Robots) always competing alongside a Pixar (Monsters Inc., Finding Nemo, The Incredibles)

However as more and more companies' movie into feature computer animation, the less it becomes special. These days it's hard to find a film that has no computer effects present even if they're in the credits. And so it's time for a new path to be made, for a new experiment in the art of film. Motion Capture.

Motion capture is in a nutshell CGI, but it goes a little more than just creating a character on a computer. With motion capture it's possible to create photo realistic faces on people with lifelike movement. In this case you can use the movements of professional actors and yet put them in the most outrageous of situations, making the viewer believe they are there.

The first film to use this technique was a fairly unknown under the radar film. Sinbad: Beyond the Veil of Mists with the voices of Brendan Fraser and Leonard Nimoy. However the film used the motion capture to gain lifelike movement rather than realistic features.

Robert Zemeckis is considered to be the first to use motion capture to its full potential. In 2004 he used it in The Polar Express. By using this method Tom Hanks was able to play the parts of five different characters including a train Conductor, a young boy and Santa Claus. Hanks were able to act out each part separately and then the animators and designers could adjust his image and place the characters in the same scene.

Unfortunately the film opened very poorly and was criticised for its use of motion capture, the audience feeling the characters looked “creepy” or “eerie”. The Polar Express suffered from “dead eye syndrome” where the eyes of the characters are unable to move and so they appear deadened and “soulless”. Luckily though the film picked up toward the end of the year and shocked critics by making a total worldwide gross of more than $302 million. The film was also released in IMAX 3D which proved even more successful.

Zemeckis followed The Polar Express with Beowulf based on the Old English epic poem of the same name. Released in 2007 this was once again motion captured in 3D. 3D is now more accessible to the public due to multiplex's providing the equipment.

Beowulf was again successful generating more than $180 million worldwide. They had also improved upon the technology and detail. People were now twice as realistic, with the “dead eye syndrome” removed allowing the characters to look more alive. Ray Winstone was cast in the lead role and was digitally toned to suit the character.

Zemeckis is planning on continuing to use motion capture with his next film A Christmas Carol starring Jim Carrey as Scrooge and each of the three ghosts that visit him that night.

So now that CGI is old news, will motion capture take off as successfully? Only time will tell, but if it does will there no longer be a demand for actors. With motion capture why hire five actors when you need only one?

In the past five years or so, budgets have risen and with it has come a mass of films relying on effects and stunts to pull in the crowds at the box office. Naturally, big budgets demand big returns, but how long will it be before the focus of a movie shifts away, possibly permanently, from characters, whether it's Mel Gibson's unstable Martin Riggs in Lethal Weapon or Tom Cruise's superspy Ethan Hunt in Mission: Impossible.

Ethan Hunt is certainly a good example of the changes in film making. In Mission: Impossible, the movie was plot driven, with twists and turns, and whilst in hindsight slightly predictable, still dramatic and with a terrific ending. The ending itself features fantastic special effects, and with a little stretch of the imagination, you could quite possibly seeing it happen as the events unfold. Jump forwards ten years to the release of Mission: Impossible III, and you see that, whilst the movie at times is gripping and highly entertaining, special effects and stunts play a major role in drawing the crowds.

That is not to say that stunts and special effects are necessarily a bad thing; the scene in the first Mission: Impossible where Cruise's character abseils into a locked room at CIA headquarters possibly one of the most memorable movie scenes in the past decade. Yet critics were quick to attack it for having such a complicated plot for summer blockbuster.

The eighties and early nineties was the place to be for films that focused on plot that twisted and turns, and characters that were flawed and human. The aforementioned Lethal Weapon, with its grit, Gibson's terrific portrayal of the dark, unpredictable Riggs, and casting of two terrific villains in Mitchell Ryan and Gary Busey, brought in three times its budget, in addition to breaking even.

Die Hard is often considered one of the best action films of its era, reinventing the genre, and leading the way for movies such as Speed, The Last Boy Scout and Under Siege in the nineties. Again, there was little reliance on special effects or stunts, and it thrilled audiences worldwide.

Maybe directors aren't as adventurous as they once were? Die Hard director John McTiernan later went on to make The Hunt for Red October, Last Action Hero and then the 1999 remake of The Thomas Crown Affair around making two more in the DH franchise. Martin Scorsese is still making movies worthy of Oscar's, not that he seems to be able to win one, thirty years after the success of now-iconic Taxi Driver. And that's even before you consider Tarantino.

No, it's not the directors.

The nineties saw an surge in blockbusters which relied on the appeal of the stars themselves rather than the quality of the movies. One of the few exceptions to that is The Fugitive; with Harrison Ford on top form yet again as Richard Kimble. Ford's performances in the first (or should I saw last) Star Wars films and the Indiana Jones trilogy were fantastic, but nothing quite got close to his portrayal of Detective John Book in Witness, possibly his all time best.

Blockbusters such as Bad Boys, Armageddon and Terminator 2 drew in the crowds in greater numbers than ever before. This continued on into the twenty first century, with sequels to Bad Boys and Die Hard. But the magic that had been, the character driven plots that gripped audiences worldwide, had declined in favour of the spectacular stunts we now see.

They may not necessarily be bad movies; indeed, if the box office figures are anything to go by, they certainly aren't. They also see to the audiences' need to be entertained. Though at the end of the day, maybe Hollywood hasn't lost its way. Movie makes know what people want to see, and their accommodating that. Very few directors are willing to take a risk and defy the codes and conventions of the contemporary cinema goes.

They're dumbing down. And so are we.