Reasons to love IMDb user ratings #2:

M. Night Shyamalan's career trajectory in IMDb user ratings:

The Sixth Sense (1999) - 8.2

Unbreakable (2000) - 7.3

Signs (2002) - 6.9

The Village (2004) - 6.6

Lady in the Water (2006) - 5.8

The Happening (2008) - 5.2

The Last Airbender (2010) - 4.4

There's a pretty unmistakable trend going on here. I still had hope for this guy long after most people had given up on him. It may have become a bit cliché these days but The Sixth Sense was a truly great and inventive film and, despite having one of the world's most anti-climatic endings ever, Unbreakable was certainly an interesting premise.

The thing is, when you see a trend like this, and M. Night Shyamalan's ever decreasing reputation in the public eye, you have to wonder why a studio would hand him $200 million to direct in a genre that he's completely unproven in.

It will be interesting to see where Shyamalan goes from here. The Last Airbender might just irreparably damage his career but surely, SURELY he can't make a film that will get a lower IMDb rating than that. Can he?

Reasons to love IMDB user ratings #1:

With a current rating of 3.6, Sex and the City 2 is currently level with Plan 9 from Outer Space, the film often voted the worst of all time (despite being ridiculously entertaining, even if it was unintentional). I would rather watch a million Plan 9's than Sex and the City 2, but its nice to see how the public rates this crap.

Stephen Norrington: The only reason to pay attention to The Crow remake.

I've argued in the past that I'm not as anti-remakes as many critics tend to be but sometimes I look at one of Hollywood's latest reboots/reimaginings/regurgitations and I am completely baffled. The Crow, a rather good but not classic 1994 comic book adaptation starring the late Brandon Lee was perfectly good on its own. Yet now, just 16 years after it was originally released we're being treated to a completely pointless reboot of the franchise. Ordinarily I'd steer clear of a film like this and just pretend it never existed but something about it has taken my interest; the fact that Stephen Norrington is writing and directing it.

To most people that name is probably unfamiliar. To a group of die hard Alan Moore fans on the other hand, the name Stephen Norrington will probably fill them with an uncontrollable rage. Norrington after all, was the man that helmed the epically disastrous League of Extraordinary Gentlemen in 2003 and was part of one of the most infamous actor-director conflicts in film history.

It was no secret that 'LXG' had a troubled production. You only have to look at the shoddy, incomplete-feeling final product to guess that all was not well throughout the film's shoot. It would be an understatement to say that Sean Connery, the film's star (and the only actor in the film with any box-office pull) was not a fan of Norrington's methods. They reportedly constantly came to blows over aspects of the film and when Norrington failed to attend the film's opening party, Connery famously suggested to reporters that they "check the local asylum" to find him.

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was to be Connery's last live-action film before retirement; a retirement that he has refused to be tempted out of, even to return to the Indiana Jones franchise (extremely good judgement in retrospect). It was also, however, the last film that Norrington made; the director had such a disastrous experience during the film's shoot that he vowed never to direct a film again.

So it is upon finding that Norrington will direct The Crow remake that my interest in the film spiked. His return to directing is not completely out of the blue; Norrington has been attached to direct several films in recent years, including the Clash of the Titans remake and Freddy vs. Jason, before pulling out. It will be an interesting to see how a man who has been convinced to give directing another shot will do on his return though. Many sceptics will describe Norrington as a hack and point to LXG as an example of why he should never have returned in the first place. However, Norrington did direct Blade; once again not a classic, but a perfectly good comic book adaptation and it would be unfair to condemn someone for one bad film. It is only when a director has been consistently bad (the Uwe Bolls and Paul W.S. Andersons of this world) that we should begin to pass such judgements. I still believe The Crow is a terrible choice of film to make a comeback, but I'll still keep an eye on it. After all, everybody deserves a second chance.

MGM's problems are bad news for film fans.

Just months after the announcement that Bond 23 was to be indefinitely delayed while MGM looks to be sold off we've received the highly disappointing news that Guillermo del Toro has been forced to drop out of directing The Hobbit films due to delays and uncertainty over production. Anyone that had seen del Toro's extremely atmospheric fantasy work on The Devil's Backbone, Pan's Labyrinth and to a lesser extent the Hellboy franchise will realise what a big loss this is. Bar Peter Jackson himself del Toro really did seem the most perfect fit for The Hobbit; creative, unique and completely devoted to the source material. However, with work on the film now likely to take 6 years rather than 3, it was a commitment del Toro simply could not make.

Whilst its a sad loss to the film it is completely understandable that del Toro would drop out. The man has many future projects that he has had to delay or pass on due to The Hobbit films and simply couldn't afford to be waiting around with the uncertainty surrounding MGM. The sad fact is that MGM's financial problems have stopped two very lucrative and exciting franchises in their tracks. Bond films are more popular than ever, particular as we have the best Bond for decades. But with the ongoing delays one begins to wonder if we will even see Daniel Craig don the tuxedo again. Its a massive shame because, with the announcement of Sam Mendes as director, there were big reasons to look forward to a new Bond.

MGM has a proud history and the image of that roaring lion has become an iconic part of film history. The potential for the studio to go bankrupt is completely unthinkable but uncertainty remains. There doesn't seem to be a buyer in sight and debts are still crippling. One would have to assume that the Bond and Hobbit franchises would survive even if MGM didn't but any true film fan would be hoping to see these films in the not too distant future with that lion still roaring before the opening credits.

The finale may have disappointed, but Lost's place in history is assured.

Even the most die hard of thanks would have admitted it was a thankless task. Take a show that has built up six years worth of mythos, confusion, twists and turns and make an ending that rewards the fans for keeping the faith. In the end, the Lost finale didn't quite live up to the promise, but it gave it a damn good try. The final twist may have left fans angry and confused but all that led up to that point was deeply engrossing; hearts were warmed, connections were made, and tears were shed. Many of the more angry reactions to the finale suggested that we had wasted six years of our lives, but despite the confusion and the unanswered questions the fact remains that those six years were spent watching one of the most mind-boggling, frustrating and just pure entertaining shows ever made.

Funnily enough, one of the biggest problems that Lost had to deal with is the fact that the answers to the big questions just weren't quite as fun as the questions themselves. Not since Twin Peaks has a show had so many mysteries and bizarre events to keep you hooked and desperate to know the meaning behind a show that was essentially nonsense. Because that is what the show was; try explaining the last six seasons to someone who's never watched Lost and you'll realise how ridiculous it all was. We kept faith because the characters were so engaging, the twists so unexpected, the plot and production showing an ambition not seen in television before.

No matter what you think of the ending, it is hard to deny that for six years we were treated to a show that had a mark of quality that few shows had. Sometimes this went beyond the meandering plot and became something truly special; 'The Constant' is not just the show's best ever episode but it could (and should) go down in history as one of the greatest standalone T.V. episodes of all time. On top of that some great actors were given the opportunity to embody some of the most unique, complex and fascinating characters we've seen. Terry O'Quinn as Locke and Michael Emerson as Ben Linus are just two examples of actor and character perfectly matched.

You may not be completely satisfied with the ending, but for the strong attachment we felt towards the cast, the pathos, and the endless twists and turns it was worth watching. We went from polar bears and electro-magnetic bunkers to time travel and beyond. Lost, it was a hell of a journey. You will be missed.

One half of New Zealand's fourth most popular guitar-based digi-bongo acapella-rap-funk-comedy folk duo to be the main villain in a big budget sequel?

Everyone loves Flight of the Conchords. Honestly, I've never met anyone who hasn't at least warmed to Bret and Jermaine's adventures in New York. So now the series has finished its fair to say everyone was interested in what they'd do next. If I'm honest with you, I never expected one of them to end up in Men in Black III. But Jermaine Clement will be...

I love left field casting, especially if someone has the balls to do it for a big budget blockbuster with a lot riding on it. I have no doubt that Clement's distant, detached style will suit well for playing a character we can only assume will be alien, even if it is difficult to imagine someone so likeable being a main villain. I'm very happy to see him moving on to bigger, if not necessarily better, things. But there's a 'but' here...who the hell was asking for another Men in Black movie?

Don't get me wrong, the original was a likeable film. It had a great sense of humour, some impressive effects for the time, and truly showcased Will Smith's ability as an A-list star. But there was something about it that was so...90's. The fact that its first sequel was so awful doesn't exactly help things either. Its been 8 years since that film was released; too long in my book. I'm sure the film will turn a profit, I just couldn't really care less about it.

The fact that Will Smith would return to the franchise doesn't exactly seem right either. All I can guess is that there's an absolutely massive pay-check involved. Smith's no Vin Diesel; he doesn't have to return to his old franchises that he'd previously 'outgrown' just to pick up some work. The man is box office gold and can pick and choose what he wants to do. Doing Men in Black III just seems like a step backwards.

Oh well, we'll have to see how this one works out for Jermaine. He's still got a bright future ahead of him whatever he does. In the meantime, here's some classic Conchords...

You had me at "David Fincher to direct"

Well this is an interesting one. The remake of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea has been floating around for a while, and for good reason. As impressive as the Kirk Douglas classic was in 1954, and as outraged as fans of the original will be, this is good material for a modern update.

My interest in this film had been growing for a while until a simple, three letter name completely ruined everything; McG. Oh McG, we tried to give you a chance, we really did. You were given a summer tentpole and the opportunity to breathe new life into a classic franchise. We ignored your awful track record and your STUPID NAME (I honestly don't know what's wrong with Joseph McGinty) but you blew it and then you attached your name to 20,000 Leagues. I have never been so certain that a director would make a hash of his source material as McG and 20,000 Leagues, and when I heard that he was pursuing Will Smith as Captain Nemo my heart sank completely (don't even get me started on Hollywood's complete refusal to cast actors of Indian or Arabic origin in the roles they were literally born to play).

Anyway, thankfully this didn't work out and the project appeared to be in the doldrums for a while until this week we heard that David Fincher was attached to direct the film AND that Fox was planning a rival production to Disney's remake (the original novel is in the public domain). Its pretty obvious that whichever one of these films gets released first is going to be the winner as previous releases of near identical films would suggest but the mention of Fincher has really peaked my interest in the Disney project.

Fincher has never once made a film that wasn't at least entertaining (damn right I'm including Alien 3 in that) and has always had a unique and exciting visual style. I don't think doing The Social Network was a particularly good move, but I could yet be proved wrong. I just feel with the increasing unpopularity and controversy surrounding Facebook's privacy issues that Mark Zuckerberg's story is just one I don't really want told. I'd just love to see what Fincher does with a different kind of big budget film. Sure he's handled the cutting edge (Benjamin Button) and franchises (Alien 3 wasn't a bad film, dammit!) but 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea could be something very different, and, potentially, very fun. I'll be watched to see how all this pans out.