ViktorDrake

THE GOOD

1. It's nice to see a few plot twists in a Star Wars movie. Usually Star Wars movies are very linear, with few shades of grey.

2. Until his ludicrously early and pathetic death, I absolutely loved Snoke in this film. I thought he was becoming an excellent dark and evil character, and was extremely well rendered.

3. For the most part, Kylo Ren's character development from a petulant child in TFA to a potentially very dangerous man was handled very well here.

4. John Williams score was excellent. Obviously, that's as obvious as saying 'grass is green', but it's still worth noting as the score is often overlooked.

5. Visually the movie looks great.

6. I still get goosebumps when the Star Wars logo and opening 'crawl' come on the screen in a cinema.

7. Errrr.....that's about it.

THE BAD

1. The Leia 'Mary Poppins/Neo/Superman' Organa scene. This could quite possibly be the WORST scene ever in a Star Wars moview. It went from being a poignant and suitably heroic end for Leia (and by extension for the late, great Carrie Fisher) to a stupid, pathetic, and frankly laughable Mary Poppins-esque space-flying joke. That one scene threw me out of the movie more than anything else. People in the cinema actually laughed... they LAUGHED at the stupidity of it. Why, oh why, didn't Mr Johnson and Disney use this scene as the perfect way to end Leia's story arc? As it is, we now have the spectre of her being written out off-screen as Disney have already confirmed Leia will not be appearing in Episode IX in any way.

2. Way, way, WAY too much slap-stick humour. If it's not Poe making prank calls and making 'your mother' jokes to Hux (within minutes of the film starting), or Finn falling off a table with water spouting out of his recovery suit.... it's all way too much. The only bits of humour that even vaguely worked for me was the scene with Chewie eating a roast Porg in front of a living one, and the 'caretakers' on Luke's island. The rest was just childish slapstick that felt forced and flat.

3. General Hux, who I thought was a boarder-line parody in TFA, takes the final step and becomes a total pantomime villain here. It's a wonder Domhnall Gleeson could get a single word out of his mouth with his tongue so firmly in his cheek. All believability for his character is now totally out of the window.

4. The slow-mo spaceship chase was totally out of keeping with everything we've ever seen in the Star Wars universe to date, and so easily solved if the First Order just 'hyperspaced' a few ships in front of the fleeing Resistance. Sloppy writing in an attempt to shoehorn in some tension.

5. The whole 'finding the codebreaker/casino-world' scene was totally unnecessary, childish in execution, and riddled with pathetic coincidences. Also, why was Maz the first person the Resistance thought of to contact for a codebreaker? How does Poe even know her? How did they find her? Why would she know anything? Again, sloppy writing to bring in a character from TFA.

6. Snoke kicking the bucket in the most pathetic manner was another "throw me out of the movie" moment. Here's a guy who was set up as one of the most powerful force-users ever in TFA and I felt he was turning into a great character.....and then suddenly he gets 'sabered in half without even noticing the lightsaber turning towards him. OK then. Now, some may say he was just another piece of misdirection, but frankly it seems to me that Rian Johnson just didn't like the character that Abrams created so decided to bin him off.

7. Luke's COMPLETE change of personality from the OT to here. Mark Hamill has gone on record saying that he fundamentally and completely disagreed with the entire direction that Johnson took his character....and I have to say, I completely agree with him. The Luke we see here has turned his back on all he stood for in ANH, ESB and RTJ, even to the point of almost killing his young nephew IN HIS SLEEP, despite in the OT risking his life for his friends and to 'save' Vader! It's almost like Johnson was just trying to be different to the OT at every possible turn, which is fine if it's done well and makes sense : but considerably less fine if he fundamentally changes key character's personalities. Guess which way that one went?

8. The end 'non-fight' between Ren and Luke was a total anticlimax. As with Leia's non-death in space, the scene went from a feeling of "we're going to see Luke in action again!" to "oh....OK, so it was a force hologram. That ended up killing him anyway". And I'm sorry, but "Force Holograms"? Really? How did Ren not realise it was a projection considering he's force-adept? And why if it was going to kill him anyway, did Luke even bother doing the whole force hologram thing? Surely he'd have been better off rocking up in person to face Ren : at least then he'd have had a fighting chance, and potentially gone out in style! As it is he just gives up on his island and dies alone from exhaustion. Hmmmm, yes, what a great end for one of the OT's key characters. Then again, Han's end in TFA was pretty ignominious too.

9. Captain Phasma once again proves to be totally overhyped and pointless. Why bother with her at all?

10. The frankly weird Harry-Potter-style 'multi-mirror' scene with Ren on Luke's island. What...was...that...about? Obviously it was meant to be a rehash of Luke's cave-scene in ESB, but here it just comes off as odd and having no place in a Star Wars movie.

11. As with TFA, there is just zero 'respect' for the OT characters here. Sure it's not the 70's and 80's anymore and things change, but the OT characters and story lines are what the Star War's universe is built upon, and as a result I feel they deserve more respect that Johnson (and Abrams for that matter) and Disney seem to be giving them. An unarmed Han being stabbed by Ren in TFA, Luke just giving up on his lonely island in TLJ, and the prospect of Leia being written out off-screen. Great...

Ultimately this film (and TFA to a certain extent), while not being absolutely terrible in isolation, just don't feel part of the Star Wars universe. And ultimately that's a real shame as these new movies should've respectfully added to the OT in much the same way as the truly excellent Rogue One has. As it is, TLJ effectively makes a mockery of all the story arcs that have gone before....and that is a real pity.

After the masterfully suspenseful horror/thriller of Alien, any sequel needed to do something different, and that was exactly what James Cameron came up with for Aliens. Where Alien is essentially a haunted house movie in space, Aliens is an all-out war movie in space.

The story fits PERFECTLY alongside Alien and there are no continuity lapses between the two. The characters are all totally believable, from the inexperienced and arrogant Gorman, through the cocky but cowardly (but ultimately heroic) Hudson, to the sleazy corporate "suit" of Burke. The cast do a fine job of bringing these characters to life, so much so that we can even accept Ripley's transformation into a kind of all-action female-Rambo by the end.

The effects are universally excellent with only a couple of fairly obvious rear-projection backdrops giving the game away nowadays. The practical Alien effects (and especially the Queen) are infinitely more scary and believable than the all-CGI-garbage that Alien:Covenant has recently foisted on the cinema-going public.

To be honest, the biggest "downer" of Aliens is how Alien 3 completely swipes away everything Ripley worked for in Aliens before the opening credits are done! But the fact that the biggest problem with Aliens is it's subsequent sequel should tell you all you need to know about it! It's an absolutely superb film which, along with The Empire Strikes Back and The Godfather Part II, has the rare accolade of being a sequel that more than holds it's own next to original.

Impossible to give this anything other than 10/10.

So once again, after the debacle of Prometheus, Ridley Scott has proved himself simultaneously a master of visuals and yet utterly incompetent when it comes to creating a believable Alien story.

The single biggest problem I had with Prometheus was the collection of imbeciles and weirdos that made up the crew, and one might have hoped that Mr Scott would have realised that himself and made amends this time round. Errr.... no, sadly not. Once again we're treated to a crew of simpletons who make THE MOST pathetic and unbelievable decisions possible. Are we really supposed to believe that a crew would just ditch it's primary mission (that we're told had been over 10 years in the planning to ensure their destination was safe, etc) just because they happened to stumble on a new planet purely by chance? Just plain ludicrous. And that's just the start. A few more examples :

• Assuming we suspend our disbelief and accept the whole "let's risk all the colonists and everything we have planned for decades for to land on this new unknown planet instead" premise, why do these alleged scientists once again TOTALLY disregard the need for any protective clothing? So no breathing equipment, nothing at all to protect them from any alien pathogens. Good thinking!

• Faced with a choice of sending either an android, or pretty much the entire human crew with no protective gear, to investigate an alien world, who should go? Yeah that's right, send all the unprotected humans!

• Choice of landing right near the source of the unknown signal, or land several miles away and in a foot of water despite there being solid and flat ground a few feet away? Yep, it's wet feet and a huge hike all round folks!

• Little alien pods on this alien world puffing their alien spores into the air? Sure, just get your nose in there and have a good sniff. I'm sure it'll be fine!

• Crewmen get infected by said spores? Don't worry about any quarantine procedures, just carry them back to the ship while getting covered in their vomited-up blood.

• Alien organism just burst out of said infected crewman? Just open up the locked door and try to shoot it, but be careful you don't miss at point blank range and then slip up on the blood.... twice. (When that happened, people actually laughed in the cinema. I was half expecting a comedy sound effect the second time!)

• Tens of thousands of dead bodies, and an enormous dead city solely inhabited by David the android from the Prometheus mission, that the planetary scan managed to NOT pick up from orbit when determining the planet to be "safe"? No need to ask David what happened, just accept that it's all fine.

• Dark basements to go into all on your own? Do it! Nothing bad will happen.

• Huge alien eggs opening in front of you? Just have a good look inside. What could possibly go wrong?!

The list of stupid decisions just goes on and on AND ON!

While visually the film is generally excellent, the all-CGI-Alien was a huge let-down. Personally I found it considerably less convincing than the practical effects used in Alien and Aliens, which is unforgivable considering the creature is what these films are all about!

Additionally the crew, apart from being imbeciles (as is usual under Mr Scott's direction these days), are also completely forgettable. I saw this movie last night and I can't remember a single character's name today. The one exception is David/Walter, and once again Fassbender does a great job. (Perhaps that's why there's two of them - to make up for a lack of any other decent characters).

The other problem narrative-wise is that both Prometheus and Covenant have actually served to make the Alien universe much SMALLER in my opinion. In the original Alien and Aliens, the creature was just an unknown organism from the far reaches of the universe, and all the more scary because of it. (The same went for the Space Jockey for that matter). But these new movies have tried to tie it all back to humanity in some way - i.e. the Engineers (who are also the Space Jockeys) created both humanity and the black oil virus, and then the Xenomorph was apparently created by David (who was in turn created by man) somehow doing some genetic tinkering with the black oil and human DNA, while living in a cave and playing with his flute. Far from expanding the Alien universe, both these prequels have actually shrunk it by making man the centre of everything, while at the same time managing to sanitise and neuter one of the greatest movie creatures of all time. So what Ridley Scott is saying is that the entire Alien series and the iconic Xenomorph itself was just created by a deranged android with God/daddy issues. How very pathetic and disappointing. I personally hate it when movies try to explain everything to the millionth degree because it invariably ends up as a massive anticlimax. What was wrong with the Xenomorph just being some hideous unknown life-form from the far reaches of space???

I could go on and on, but there's a word limit here.

Lastly, the end is just pretty feeble and anticlimactic. The CG- Alien just kind of gets killed and that's it. And the *ahem* "twist" with David/Walter could be seen from a mile away, although David wouldn't have had anywhere near enough time to cut his own arm off and change his clothes and hairstyle.

Please PLEASE Mr Scott, stand aside and let Neill Blomkamp have his shot at an Aliens sequel.

A generous 2 Stars. One for the visuals that are once again gorgeous, and one for a great effort from Fassbender.

PLEASE NOTE - THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS!

Without a shadow of a doubt this is by far and away the best Star Wars movie since 1983's Return Of The Jedi. It's also by far the most adult Star Wars movie yet, and as an adult viewer I found that seriously refreshing. One thing that did surprise me though was the number of extremely young children in the cinema - parents take note that this isn't really a film for little kids. The violence levels are much higher than previous instalments and (SPOILER ALERT!) all the heroes die at the end, so don't expect a cheery journey home with the little'uns!

I've noticed quite a few people complaining about this movie, and it seems that some are completely missing the fact that it's a Star Wars-RELATED movie, NOT part of the primary Star Wars story arc. Yes there's no opening crawl at the start. Why? Because it's not part of the primary Star Wars "Episodic" story. Yes there are no Jedi or lightsabers (well, not until the very end at least). Why? Because it's NOT part of the primary Star Wars "Episodic" story! Yes the music is quite different to the others. Why? Have a guess at the answer folks! This movie is different because it's MEANT to be different! Not liking a movie because of it's story line or the acting is one thing, but missing the point is something else.

Another common complaint is that it's too slow - personally I found the pacing excellent, building the main characters backstory just enough for you to care about them before the action kicks in. Some have also said that Jyn isn't a likable character - in my opinion, not being a typical whiter-than-white saccharine-sweet Hollywood heroine is something to be celebrated, not moaned about. Let's not forget she's shown to be a criminal at the start of the movie, so once again I think it's great the film makers decided to go down a slightly darker and (dare I say) more realistic route.

The characters are all original and well-developed enough for an action movie, the effects are generally excellent, and the story is coherent and refreshingly different to the others on the main Star Wars story arc. It's also great to NOT see Tattooine for once! As I said above, this is a much more adult take on the Star Wars universe, with people on both sides doing morally dubious acts. It brings a refreshing shade of grey to the usually black and white Star Wars world.

A special mention needs to go to the Vader scene at the end as it's fantastic - FINALLY, after nearly 40 years we get to see Vader kicking some serious backside...well, for a couple of minutes at least.

All in all it's considerably better than The Force Awakens (which I rated as an OK 6/10), and a million times better than the universally appalling prequels.

The only thing that prevents me from giving it 10/10 is the slightly "off" CGI that's standing in for both Peter Cushing and a young Carrie Fisher. Unfortunately it seems we're still in the "uncanny valley" when it comes to trying to produce a 100% realistic CGI human. That said, my girlfriend didn't actually realise that Tarkin was CGI, so maybe it's only noticeable to those of us who know Cushing is dead. Either way I'm still glad they at least attempted bring Tarkin and Leia to CGI-life instead of recasting either actor.

All in all, one of the best Star Wars movie.......ever.

Like so many others here I'm still a huge fan of the first three Bourne movies. At the time they were fresh and (for the most part) intelligent, and represented a massively needed kick in the backside to the spy action/thriller genre : so much so, that there can be no doubt that Casino Royale wouldn't have been half the film it turned out to be if it wasn't for Bourne breathing down Bond's neck.

The beauty of the original Bourne trilogy is that it was essentially a complete story with no need (or indeed room) for any natural continuation of Bourne's story. He had found out who he was, exorcised his demons, disposed of those who needed disposing, and appeared to everyone who mattered to be dead, thus allowing him to disappear and get on with his life. Job done.

To continue the series at all then a change of direction was needed, and in my opinion it was actually a very smart move to attempt something a little different with Jeremy Renner in Legacy, although the film itself was still no-where near the quality of the originals as it ventured into full-on make-believe-land with superman-pills, etc.

So with all that in mind, a return by Bourne himself after a 9 year absence needed something very special indeed to avoid simply rehashing what went before. And unfortunately in that regard the film-makers have completely and utterly failed.

Jason Bourne is nothing more than a collection of ideas from the first 3 movies that have been lightly dusted off, then liberally doused in laughably unbelievable "IT-speak", and then filmed in good ol' 90's style shaky vomit-cam. And yet, despite just being a rehash of action sequences from the original trilogy, none of them were remotely as thrilling or engaging as anything from the first three films - no doubt primarily due to the fact that the shaky camera-work and 3 cuts per second mean you can never see what the hell is going on! The original Bourne movies all had a whiff of shaky-cam about them, but here it's ramped up to a new level, and then also combined with the most frenetic editing imaginable. When, oh WHEN are directors going to realise that shaky-cam is the most hideous, nausea-inducing "technique" ever to be inflicted upon paying film-goers?! Yes, yes we all know it's supposed to portray energy and movement, but the only movement it generates in me is of the bowel variety! That and a serious turning of the stomach.

As I say above, the hilarious "IT-speak" throws anyone with even a passing knowledge of IT completely out of the movie, and when you combine that with the CIA's apparently instantaneous ability to "enhance" any image no matter how blurred, instantly hack into any CCTV feed anywhere in the world, re-task satellites in a matter of seconds, hack a computer using a mobile phone just placed near it, etc, etc, you quickly realise you're watching a no-brain, no-thought, cynical cash-grab of a movie. Oh and there's only so many times you can hear some random suit say, "My god, that's Jason Bourne" while staring at a computer screen, before it all seems rather tired and old-hat. The whole movie just feels very cynical, clichéd and frankly unnecessary.

I also felt the Vegas car chase was single-handedly the most unrealistic chase in any of the Bourne films. For a purportedly gritty and realistic series, seeing a SWAT vehicle ploughing lines of cars 10 feet up into the air, and coming away with nothing more than a bit of paint damage had all the realism of a computer game. What's that van supposed to be made of? Unobtainium? "Indestructium"? More likely "Leave-Brain-At-The-Doorium".

For the first time ever with a Bourne movie (and I'm even including Legacy here) I was actually bored watching it. The only thing that felt fresh about this movie was how out of ideas it is. I never thought I'd say it, but I genuinely hope Bourne is put out to pasture now as there really isn't anywhere else to go with this character and his story.

In summary, this movie is a less than average actioner/thriller that dumps on the legacy of the original Bourne trilogy by taking a great character and storyline, and turning it into a boring recycled mess, while also inducing violent stomach-churning in all but the hardiest of viewers. Quite an achievement in anyone's book...

This movie just goes to show what happens when a director is given totally free reign in terms of script and running time, purely on account of his name. Tarantino has always been a fan of long conversational sections in his movies, but where they were engaging, entertaining and scalpel-sharp in the likes of Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown, here they are just interminably long, boring and dull.

For the first time EVER, my girlfriend actually fell asleep in the cinema watching this bore-fest of a film, and that was way before the interval arrived. Talking of which, there was an audible groan that went up from the audience when the interval sign turned up on the screen, and not because everyone was soooo enthralled ; more that everyone was just willing it to end. While we were kicking our heels during the interval, I overheard the guy behind me say, "this is clearly Tarantino's Phantom Menace", while another guy was heard to say, "hmmm, after an hour and half at least SOMETHING usually happens in a movie". After an intriguing first 15 mins, nothing (and I mean NOTHING) of any note happens for the remainder of the first half of the film. The dialog is also painfully predictable in places. More than once, a conversation would start and I knew how it would end within the first couple of seconds...and yet the characters on screen would take several minutes to get there. Truly painful stuff.

The swearing, the liberal use of the "N" word, and the violence (when it eventually arrives after hours of plodding and highly unrealistic chit-chat), are not the problem with this film in my opinion. After all, this is a Tarantino movie which (while coming across as all rather juvenile), is designed for adults, so adult language and themes should surprise absolutely no-one. The problem is purely the fact that it's just too bloody long for such a threadbare plot! If this movie came in at somewhere between 1.5 and 2 hours, then it would've been just about OK (still not great, but OK at best), but at over 3 hours it's just a director's masturbation piece. It desperately needs a NON-Director's Cut to trim at least an hour out of the first half. There's a line in the movie where Samuel L Jackson's character says, "Let's slow this down. Let's slow it way down"... and at that point I physically curled my toes in my shoes, thinking please god, don't make this any slower! Watching this movie is an ordeal, almost as punishing as what the old General's son has to go through at the "business end" of Jackson's "Johnson"!

Granted, the second half is a little more engaging, but unfortunately by that point the damage has already been done by forcing the audience to sit through the turgid load of garbage that comprises the first half. But just when things are potentially looking up, Tarantino decides to feature an appearance by Zoe Bell who must have a fantastic chance of being crowned 'The Least Convincing Actress Ever To Grace The Silver Screen'! She is a truly atrocious performer, who's apparently picked up no additional acting skills since her abysmal showing in the marginally better Death Proof. If grinning inanely and reading a few lines like a child in a school play is "acting" then sign me up for an Oscar please.

By the way, how the hell did this thing cost $62m to make? Apart from a few outdoor scenes, the whole thing takes place in one room in a log cabin! So much for making the most out of the much vaunted 70mm format which is perfect for grand landscape vistas...and entirely wasted on indoor scenes.

In many ways this film comes across as all rather childish. Here Tarantino seems like a first-year film school student who's been given a camera (and a 70mm one at that), free reign to use some "fruity" language, and the keys to the fake-blood cupboard. I'm almost surprised he didn't try to shoehorn a couple of naked women into the movie as well...

In short, this is by far and away the worst movie Tarantino has ever made, and if it hadn't been made by him it would have a rating far lower than 8/10 on here. (In fact, after seeing page after page of 1 and 2 star ratings, I'm completely at a loss as to where the (current) 8/10 rating comes from!?). All I can say is if you INSIST on seeing this plodding mess, wait until it comes out on Blu-Ray and watch it in the comfort of your own home over the course of, say, three or four evenings with several espressos. If you're really lucky you may be able to stay awake through the whole lot if you watch it like that. Otherwise....sweet dreams.

THERE ARE BIG SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW!

In short (and I'm saying this as a huge original trilogy Star Wars fan) I thought it was pretty reasonable....but not without a couple of annoying faults.

The Good -

To me the whole thing feels like a proper Star Wars movie that sits nicely with the original trilogy. It's good to see everything looking beaten up and dirty again, which was sadly missing from Lucas's CGI-fest prequels. I thought the humour worked pretty well here too - not OTT like Lucas would've done nowadays. I think Kylo Ren has potential to become a great villain and I for one am very pleased they haven't tried to "out-Vader" Vader here.

I also liked how Finn was a complete coward - good for character growth over the next movies, and a massive change to the usual steely-eyed and steely-jawed Hollywood heros. Rey was also good for the most part, with a couple of exceptions. And I actually liked Supreme Leader Snoke, especially as I was previously concerned that he was going to look total garbage as an all-CGI character. I think he worked pretty well, especially at the giant size of the hologram.

A lot of people have said it's basically just a remake of ANH with a bit of ESB thrown in and I totally agree, but I actually think that's not a bad way to go as it grounds the new characters in something familiar. I loved the little nostalgic touches like the glass panel screens in the Resistance control room like in ANH and ESB, Admiral Akbar being there, the holo-game on the Falcon, the old style targeting screen on the Falcons guns, etc. All nice touches in my opinion.

I thought BB8 was great - even more personality than R2, and a fine addition to the Star Wars universe. I thought Han was great - same character as he always was, but even more cranky. However (and even though you could see it coming a mile off), I think Han's death was quite a weak end for such an iconic and much loved character. I also loved the Luke reveal at the end as well, and although we knew it from the trailers, I really liked all the wrecked Empire ships on Jakku. I also like the way they toned down all the Jedi/Sith Force-jumps as I always felt the prequels were way too OTT in that regard.

The Less Good -

That said, there were a couple of extremely annoying bits that would've been so SO easy to rectify. Firstly, how the hell did Rey pick up the Force so suddenly??? At the beginning of the movie she knows jack about the Force, and then all of a sudden she can do mind tricks on Stormtroopers and basically kick Ren's ass with a lightsaber! He's been properly trained for years but she basically whips his ass so that he's only saved by a massive crevasse opening up in the ground. Luke took 3 movies and Yoda banging on at him for months to get even remotely good, so how is she suddenly that good in couple of hours... with no training, or even any knowledge of the Jedi??? What is this - "Instant-Jedi" for the ADHD generation???

Also how is Rey so incredible at both fixing and flying the Falcon despite clearly having no way of knowing how? Hell, she even tells HAN what to fix!?!

The second really irritating thing (and this is even worse) is how Finn just picks up a lightsaber and also nearly kick Ren's ass as well!! At least Rey (who is clearly going to turn out to be either Luke's kid, or in some other way hugely force-adept) has some inbred connection to the Force, but Finn has nothing at all...and no training...and yet can hold his own in a lightsaber fight with Ren. I thought all of that kind of made Ren to look a bit pathetic and not really a threat by the end of the movie....which is a shame as I reckon he's got potential to be a damn good villain. (I loved the opening battle when Ren uses the force to stop a laser blast in mid flight, but he seemed to just forget about his own ability when being faced with a janitor with zero saber-time! Knowing what he could do a mere 90 minutes previously makes it all the more pathetic how Rey and Finn can almost beat him).

The last thing that irritated me (and this is JJ Abrams through and through) was how the Starkiller Base laser worked. Sucking up the power of a sun?? Really??? So they can store the entire power of a star (a STAR!!) in a machine.... built into a planet? Oooookay then. And what happens once they've done that and fired the weapon? No chance to recharge it again... so the whole base/planet goes into a nuclear winter as the sun is dead. Yes I KNOW this is sci-fi, and I KNOW disbelief has to be suspended, but the whole "draining a sun" thing is just a typical crap Abrams MacGuffin. And all the more annoying as there was no need for it!

It's just a real shame because those bits I've mentioned above could've been changed very slightly and it wouldn't have damaged the story in any way.

But all in all I think it's a decent enough movie, and about as good as our over-inflated expectations could hope for. I say again it's a shame Han is dead (and I would've liked to see him check out a little more heroically) because now we will never see the big reunion of Han, Luke and Leia.... but hey, that's the movies for you!

CONTAINS SPOILERS

I shouldn't have been surprised really. Same director as the truly atrocious and plot-hole-filled Skyfall, plus several different screenwriters, a budget and hype-machine in overdrive, and sycophantic reviews from allegedly "professional" film critics. It astounds me how movies like this garner just unabashed gushing praise from critics and moviegoers alike. Please just open your eyes and your brains, for god's sake people! Once again we are given a Bond movie that has been delivered by committee - a story by several different writers, a director with no real understanding of Bond, and Hollywood money-men clearly more interested in making sure all the vast sums of cash that've been spent is on locations, instead of sparing any at all for a decent plot and a shred of realism. Much like Skyfall, this is nothing more than some admittedly gorgeous and well shot locations being used to showcase some very mediocre and often nonsensical action scenes and plodding exposition, that serve no point other than to set up the next location/scene. The plot is toilet-paper thin and it's this that gives rise to my belief that this is the "S0d it, that'll do" Bond movie, because I'm pretty sure that's what Sam Mendes said on a daily basis shooting this piece of junk.

You can imagine a production meeting -

Production Assistant : "OK, so Bond kills a guy in Mexico at the beginning of the movie. Why does he do it?"

Sam Mendes : "OK, how about Dead M leaves him a 5 second video asking him to do it? Yes? No? S0d it, that'll do!"

It's all very reminiscent of how in Skyfall Bond needs to find the guy who shot him with the depleted uranium round - the guy who was apparently a "ghost" with no known country of origin. Pretty fortunate then that London not only knew he was going to be in Hong Kong the next day, but even what flight he was arriving on! How very handy.

I said this about Skyfall and I say it again for Spectre, but Sam Mendes is a lazy film-maker. The way Bond finds his way from one set-piece to the next has more in common with Scooby-Doo than any real espionage (or heaven forbid, a plot). But then it seems far too many cinema-goers these days just go to watch things going bang, and sadly Hollywood is more than happy to pander to this.

The other thing that really irritated me was how unrealistic it all was, despite allegedly maintaining the "grittiness" that was so expertly introduced in Casino Royale. For example, the fight with Hinx on the train resulted in Bond taking a pasting....but not a single cut or bruise afterwards. Contrast that to the superb stairwell fight in Casino Royale and the difference is immense.

Other examples of lazy and/or pathetic film making, in no particular order -

1) The pathetic "dentist chair" torture device that Blofeld uses on Bond. The first "drill" into his skull was apparently going to "disrupt his sight, hearing and balance" - no effect on Bond at all. The second "drill" was supposed to make him forget the faces of people he knows. Does it work? Nope. A second later Bond is free, still recognising everyone around him, and he can still to run, shoot and kill enemies at a distance without a care in the world. Amusing how at odds this scene was to the highly realistic (and infamous) "nut-whacking" scene in Casino Royale.

2) How did Mr White manage to build a secret room in the Tunisian L'Americain hotel with no-one noticing? And why did he do that anyway considering he apparently only went back there once a year? And how did Bond manage to break down the wall of the hotel in the middle of the night, with no-one from the hotel hearing?

3) How does Bond know where to go and how does he infiltrate Monica Bellucci's house and be ready to kill the Spectre assassins? Oh and as luck would have it she knows exactly where Spectre meet! Wow, how very fortunate!

4) How does Bond instantly find Mr White's chalet hideout, despite having no information other than Q telling him. "He was last sighted in Austria"? I mean, it's not like Austria's very big or anything! The "S0d it, that'll do" mentality in full effect.

5) The incredibly lack-lustre car chase in Rome. Gorgeous location but no sense of urgency or danger in the chase at all. Hell, Bond even has time to make a few mobile calls.

6) Why make Blofeld Bond's step-brother? Just.....why?

7) Why does Blofeld's "meteorite crater lair" completely explode after Bond shoots one simple gauge off the top of a pipe? It's apparently an information collection facility, not a fuel or high-explosives plant but it blows up after one easy shot! Lazy film-making.

The list is actually endless.

Lastly, I'm just tired of these "you're past it, Bond" story lines. It worked in Goldeneye as Bond had been away from our screens for a decade, so for M to call Brosnan's Bond "a misogynist dinosaur ; a relic of the cold war", was entirely accurate. But then the "Bond's past it" storyline reappears in Skyfall.... oh and then again in Spectre, although it's his whole department at risk this time. Time for new ideas guys!

I actually feel really sorry for Daniel Craig as I personally think Casino Royale is one of the best Bond movies ever made, and I really thought Craig's Bond could be the defining take on the character, but these last two movies represent some of the lowest points in Bond's celluloid career.

So in summary - it's marginally better than Skyfall, but it's still the 3rd worst Bond movie of all time. Not impressed at all. S0d it, that'll do.

First of all, like a million others on here I'm a massive fan of James Bond. There's been some brilliant Bond films, and there's been some truly awful Bond films. So where does Skyfall fit in the Bond canon? Well, it's not the worst Bond movie : that accolade still resides firmly with Die Another Day. However, Skyfall is sadly the 2nd worst Bond film ever made in this reviewer's opinion.

The Pros.

1. The name. Skyfall is a great name for a movie.

2. The theme tune. A great, theme sung by Adele, that harks back to the Shirley Bassey classics of yesteryear.

3. Errr, that's about it.

The Cons.

There are far too many to mention them all, but they all fall into the camps of either lazy film-making, poor script-writing, pathetic attempts to turn Bond into a Superman/Terminator/Jason Bourne-on-steroids type of character, or just ludicrous plot contrivances that serve no other purpose other than to set up another scene. Examples in no particular order -

1. The stolen list of undercover agents – it's the whole reason for the story, and yet how it was stolen is never mentioned. It also completely vanishes from the storyline half way through, never to be mentioned again.

2. Bond crashing his motorbike into the bridge wall to be thrown onto the top of a train. No chance in a million years that would've worked. Why do it? The other guy just climbed up and jumped (vaguely believable), but Bond has to do a Superman effort.

3. Bond getting shot through the shoulder with a depleted uranium round. Apart from a quick wince, does it affect him AT ALL? Of course not. He can still climb, fight, punch, hang on to things, and adjust his cufflinks without batting an eyelid. Hmmmm, yes very believable I'm sure.

4. The fall from the train. The fact he survives a fall like that is hands-down the most ridiculous thing in a Bond movie since the invisible car. A fall of half that height into water would kill you. Instantly. Oh and then Bond goes off a waterfall too! He must've been cursing his bad luck that day! It still would've been a thrilling shot if the distance to fall was 30 feet, but no, the film-makers have to ramp it up to Terminator-only-surviving proportions.

5. The totally unbelievable overall plan and hacking ability of Da Silva. Hacking to MI6's heating system to blow up M's office. Riiiiight. And he KNEW she'd be out at the time. Just like he KNEW they'd retreat to the underground bunker place. Just like he KNEW he'd be taken straight there when he was captured. Just like he KNEW he'd be put into to a ludicrous glass cell (with no bed, no toilet, no facilities at all) in a room with single trapdoor that was computer controlled and also the only door between the most secure place in England and the public London Underground railway system. Just like he KNEW the exact times EVERYTHING would happen, right from being captured near China, being taken to the new MI6 headquarters, seeing M, Q and Bond cracking the code, him being able to escape, and then being also stopped by Bond in EXACTLY the right spot and at the right time to blow a hole in the underground tunnel with just enough time to say a smart one-liner before a train comes crashing through. Imagine if M was caught short and was bit late seeing him - his whole timings would've been shot. I mean, how gutted would he have been! Pathetic storytelling that expects the audience to have an IQ in single figures.

6. The abandoned island that Da Silva apparently cleared of people by saying there was a chemical leak. When did he do that? 50 or 60 years before? It must've been at least that long as the place looked like it had been deserted for at least that amount of time.

7. Hydrogen cyanide doesn't melt your face. It's not corrosive so Da Silva's disfigurement is there for no reason other than to try make him look like "proper" Bond villain. (Personally I'd have just not stuck him that ridiculous wig, but hey that's just me).

8. Bond's idea of taking M to Scotland is fine if he plans to simply hide her away. But he doesn't - he plans to lure Da Silva to him, and at no point does he consider taking some guns, or some additional people with him. No, instead he trusts that there will still be a few old hunting rifles at his old family home, and that's it. No backup, no weapons, nothing. Good thinking Bond.

9. Why does Bond's Aston Martin have all the Goldfinger modifications on it? In this time-line he won the car in Casino Royale, so it wouldn't have any of the Goldfinger mods on it. Plus Bond himself says that the Aston is 'not a "Company" car', meaning it's not an MI6 vehicle, so it would just be a normal car.

11. The ludicrous way that Patrice who shoots Bond with the depleted uranium round is apparently "a ghost" with no known country of origin, and yet MI6 know exactly where he'll be in a couple of days and even what flight he'll be on! Handy huh? Lazy film-making.

12. The stupid plot device of M and the Gamekeeper using a TORCH in the middle of a pitch black moor! No other reason than to explain how Da Silva suddenly finds them.

Basically it's a very weak and lazy film, with more plot holes that a swiss cheese. My opinion – watch Casino Royale, or even Quantum of Solace (provided you have a sick-bag handy due to the hideous shaky-cam), to see Craig as Bond as he should be. Avoid Skyfall at all costs.

There is no doubt in my mind that Solomon Northup suffered greatly during the eponymous 12 years he spent as a slave in the Deep South. There is also no doubt that it was an incredibly bleak period of human history that quite rightly shouldn't ever be allowed to be forgotten. Lastly there is also no doubt that everyone involved with this movie (with the exception of Brad Pitt) puts in fantastically believable performances. Standouts for me were Chiwetel Ejiofor (fairly obviously) and especially Micheal Fassbender who gives an absolutely awesome turn as a man who clearly revelled in having the power of life and death over other human beings. Fassbender's performance alone is worthy of the entry price. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of Brad Pitt as the one-and-only "good" white man portrayed in this film, but luckily he's not in the film too long, and his acting is quickly overshadowed by the other towering and nuanced performances on shows.

However, the movie itself is considerably less nuanced in places. The constant onslaught of violence, degradation and misery actually gets a little tiresome after a while, as does the "white man is bad" message that constantly pervades everything. As I say above, there is no doubt it WAS an extremely miserable time for anyone on the receiving end of such treatment from the slavers, but I personally think the movie lost a great deal of its potential impact by relentlessly beating the viewer into submission with its message. Basically I didn't think this movie had anything new to say that hasn't already been said a hundred times before.

The other problem for me was that some sequences were actually quite boring. The director seems to enjoy incredibly long and lingering close-ups in which absolutely nothing happens. One shot of Solomon Northup towards the end of the movie had him staring at nothing while the sound of bee buzzed in the background. I'm sure that shot lasted for over a minute...and absolutely nothing happened at the end of it.

Basically it's a worthy enough film dealing with troubling and powerful subject matter. The only problem is in the execution, but this film will no doubt garner a huge number of awards as the worthiness will outweigh the failings of the film.

As the title says, I found this to be an OK film - nothing more, nothing less. On the plus side, it's a true story (with a little Hollywood embellishment), and as a tale it definitely deserved to be told on the big screen. Tom Hanks is very good (as you'd expect) and he delivers a nicely nuanced performance as the slightly world-wearing eponymous captain. Additionally, the Somali pirates are very well portrayed displaying the edgy, unpredictability of men in that situation.

However, on the negative side, I personally found this movie a little too long in places. For example, the sequence where the SEALS are attempting to get all three pirates in their sights before firing just seemed to take an age. So much so, that for me, it went past the point of creating tension, and bordered on creating boredom.

But the biggest problem for me is the hideous shaky camera work. Why oh why is this method of film-making still so popular? It's nothing more than nausea-inducing and adds absolutely nothing to the cinematic experience in my opinion. I can just about accept it during high-octane action sequences just as the beach landing in Saving Private Ryan, but when it's a shot of Tom Hanks standing on the bridge of a container ship on a calm day looking through some binoculars, why does the camera have to be swaying around the cameraman is try to play hide and seek? The shaky camera is a great way to ruin an otherwise reasonable movie.

In summary, it's an OK film for one viewing (provided you have a sick bag at the ready, should the camera work really get to you), but it's not something I plan to watch again. I'd give the story a 7/10, but the camera-work a 2/10. Overall 4/10. All in all, a bit over-rated.

I really enjoyed this film, and amazingly so did my (usually pessimistic when it comes to movies) girlfriend.

Despite only just being born when the real life events of this movie took place, I've been a huge Formula 1 fan for many years now and have watched and read up on the 1976 season. And with that in mind I feel that with this movie Ron Howard has done a great job portraying as much of the real-life events as possible while keeping within the confines of Hollywood movie-making (and the inevitable box-office considerations).

Both Hemsworth, and especially Brühl, turn in fine performances as Hunt and Lauda respectively, and I feel both men truly captured the essence of the two drivers as well as the rivalry and respect they both held. That said I'm not exactly sure why Hemsworth is the only one shown on the promotional posters as Brühl is arguably the more important (and certainly better acted) character of the two. Requirements of pretty-boy marketing I guess.

The effects in this movie are all first rate and truly add to the spectacle without overpowering it. The fateful and horrendous Lauda crash at the Nürburgring is particularly well executed.

One thing worth noting is that you don't need to be steeped in motorsport knowledge to enjoy this film as the emphasis is definitely on character and relationships, rather than fast cars. As I said at the top, my girlfriend who is no motorsport fanatic by any stretch of the imagination, loved this film as much as I did.

Overall a really great film about an intense and interesting friendship/rivalry during one of the great eras of motorsport.

I saw Gravity last night in 3D and I'm still not exactly sure what to make of it. I enjoyed it as a piece of fluff, but at no point did I feel I was watching greatness.

For a start, I think the *ahem* "professional" film critics must either be a) on the studio's payroll, or b) so highly trained in the film reviewing art that they're seeing something in this film that I'm not, or c) they're so totally caught up in the Hollywood hype and nonsense themselves that they completely overlook the many failings. I personally believe it's the latter.

Lots of people have complained about the simplistic plot - personally I'm absolutely fine with that as not every movie needs to have layers and layers of complexity. It's a simple story covering a couple of hours of the lives two space technicians who's mission goes belly-up. Fine.

What's far LESS fine, are the blatantly stupid things that are in place. For example, Bullock's character (Stone) having had a mere 6 months training before being sent off to fix the Hubble. Stone not being remotely mentally up to the task due to a family trauma that is still clearly affecting her. Stone being allowed into space despite (apparently) crashing her simulator EVERY SINGLE TIME. Stone being able to operate not only American space vessels, but also (rather handily) Russian and Chinese ones too : apparently while she was crashing her American sim all the time, she was also doing crash-courses in foreign space tech too.

Then there's Clooney's character, Kowalski. A typical (for the movies anyway) wise-cracking (yet stoic in the face of danger) all-American heroic-type, with either a cheeky chat-up line for the girls, or a tension-breaking one-liner, who is always calm and controlled in the face of certain death. "My god, that's beautiful - the sun on the Ganges" says Kowalski as he slowly drifts off to death by suffocation. Also there is no way on Earth Kowalski would fly round and round the shuttle and the Hubble with his jetpack like he does for the first 15 mins of the movie. There is no way he'd waste the fuel, or risk a collision like that. No way. Same goes for the other astronaut leaping up off the shuttle to be stopped by his tether just for a laugh. Space is the most hostile place mankind has ever been, so clowning around to that extent just wouldn't happen.

Then there is all the nonsense of the space debris being visible coming towards them, even though it's moving "faster than a bullet". OK, so it's just done for dramatic effect, but in a movie supposedly being a realistic depiction of space, it's a little annoying.

Then there's the issue of the fact that despite being in space, everything is in apparently in the same plane and incredible close to each other - the ISS, the CSS, the shuttle, the debris field - all on the one plane and within a couple of hundred miles for each other. Useful to the story no doubt, but implausible in the extreme.

Then there's the re-entry sequence. Why does the rest of the CSS burn up (as it would), whilst Stone's re-entry pod somehow manages to orientate itself (despite being effectively blown off the disintegrating space station) so that it's heat shield is at the correct angle? And then the landing in the water where she nearly drowns, nearly gets stuck in some kelp (people were actually laughing in the cinema at that point!), before emerging helpfully close to land, and helpfully in a warm climate considering she's only wearing hot pants and a vest.

The CGI was OK - not sure where all the rave review are coming from about that to be honest. There was nothing wrong with it, but it didn't strike me as truly ground-breaking either.

That said, (and I realise this review has seemed overly negative), I didn't dislike it is as a piece of entertainment. It's simple, reasonably well executed and with the right amount of tension to be worth an hour and a half of your time. For the movie alone I'd give it a 6 or 7 out of 10, but I'm knocking a point or two off for the idiotically sycophantic "professional" critic's reviews. 5 overall.

Simply put - I loved every minute of it! I have a wide appreciation for all genres of movie, and what I love more than anything is a movie that does exactly what it says on the tin.... and this movies does that in spades!

I recently read a review from someone who gave Pacific Rim 1 out of 10, and said something along the lines of, "I like mature films, so this is terrible". Yes, well, one look at the trailer should've been more than sufficient to let that particular reviewer know what they were going to see. Yes it's loud. Yes it's big, brash and at times a little brainless, and has more that it's fair share of clichés (although I prefer to call them homages!) but that's what this kind of movie is all about.

That said, I would say there is a little more brain and emotion in this movie than in other films of this type, and all the better it is too as a result. Sure there are plenty of elements from other movies all present and correct. There's a bit of Independence Day, a bit of Transformers, and bit of Top Gun, a bit of the Matrix, even a bit of Inception, but frankly who cares? This movie has NEVER set out to be anything more than it is - a full on crazy action movie about huge mechanical exoskeletons fighting huge alien monsters. Not every movie needs multiple layers of complexity to be considered as good.

The CGI and practical effects are some of the best I've ever seen in any movie, the casting is absolutely fine in my opinion, and the script is perfectly adequate for this type of film.

It's very easy to pick holes in movies like this, such as saying, "why don't they just fire missiles at the Kaiju instead of fighting them hand to hand", etc, but that would kind of defeat the whole purpose of the film, and at the end of the day, going to the movies is all about suspending disbelief for a couple of hours of your life. I think too many people have forgotten how to simply enjoy a film at face value without feeling the need to criticise something.

That said, the only thing I felt that was slightly incongruous was the comedic scientist duo. I did find them quite amusing, but when they appeared for a scene they just didn't seem to sit all that well with the incredible action sequences involving the Jaeger's and Kaiju. But that's the only slight negative point I can think of. (One star off for this point).

If this movie had been made when I was 15 it'd instantly be my favourite film of all time. As it is, and with me with an extra 20+ years on my age, it still ranks as a truly great film OF IT'S KIND, in my book. Of course it's not the Godfather, it's not Citizen Kane, it's not Schindler's List, but what it IS is a master class in how to do the "big boys toys" action genre.

See it in IMAX (as I did) and simply revel in the rib-rumbling noise and eye-popping action. For what it is, it's very VERY hard to beat.

I really wanted to like this film, and to be honest there was quite a bit to like. Guy Pearce's character "Snow" COULD'VE been a true great of the genre, and Pearce played him extremely well in my opinion. Kind of like a modern day Snake Plisskin but with more wry humour and irony, Snow (and by extension, Pearce) was by far and away the best thing about the movie. I also actually liked the fact that the plot was pared down to the bare minimum : popcorn actioners like this don't need a convoluted plot - all they need to do is thrill and entertain.... and for the most part this movie just about manages it. The rest of the acting is OK too - Maggie Grace copes fine with what the script allows her, and Peter Stormare dials in adequate performance without exactly stretching himself. Even the paper-thin plot is fine for a sci-fi actioner like this, and a few truly daft things aside (such as managing to re-enter Earth's atmosphere from orbit in a spacesuit and then parachuting softly to the ground!), it acquits itself OK.

However, the whole thing is let down by a couple of issues.

Firstly, this movie features what is quite possibly the worst piece of CGI EVER committed to film. The motorbike chase right at the beginning of the movie looks like a cartoon, and I've seen more realistic cut-scenes in PS3 games. For a minute I actually thought it was supposed to be a cartoon/game segment like in "The Beach" and the "Doom" movie.... but no, it was just terrible CGI. This one scene stayed with me throughout the movie and kind of ruined it for me. Why this one scene was so bad is beyond me as the rest of the CGI is generally OK.

Secondly, (and this is no doubt the cause of issue one) is a distinct lack of budget with too lofty intentions. Despite the prison apparently housing 500 prisoners, we only see a tiny number of them, and the sets all feel exactly like that - just sets. The whole thing just lacks any "size".

And lastly, while I'm fan of Vincent Regan as an actor, I just felt he didn't make a very good "mastermind" villain in this movie. I just felt he lacked the gravitas to be truly memorable or provide any serious threat despite his acts of violence. His loony brother was more memorable (and very well acted), but the movie definitely lacked a truly scary leader of the inmates.

As a totally throwaway actioner, this movie just about does the job as a "one-watch-wonder". What's more of a shame is that the Snow character deserved a much better movie and I for one would like to see him again in a movie given a bit more budget. Unfortunately on the strength of this film, I don't think we'll see him again. Still, at least Guy Pearce got to pay his bills for a while longer as a result of making this movie.

So in summary, I'd give it 4 out of 10 as it pretty much delivers what it promises.... which is a damn sight more than the likes of "Prometheus" which fails to deliver anything like it promised. Watch once with a beer in hand, and then immediately forget about it.

I first saw this film about 25 years ago, and back then my idea of a good movie was Commando or Cyborg. Consequently, this, plus the fact that I'd never read any of the Dune books at that point, meant that I found Lynch's vision peculiar in the extreme. BUT, I also found it strangely fascinating.... so much so, that I got a friend of mine to watch it with me, so I could "show him how weird it was". But again I found it strangely fascinating, and I found myself being drawn into this incredibly and unique world that Lynch (and obviously Frank Herbert) had created.

Fast forward 25 years, and after numerous viewings, this is one of my all time favourite films. I've also since read all of Herbert's Dune books (Dune itself a number of times), and I'm only too well aware that Lynch's film isn't exactly 100% accurate to the book (Hell, in some places it's not even 1% accurate!), but that isn't a problem for me, as the FEEL of the film captures Dune absolutely perfectly for me. It's weird, it's beautiful, it's haunting and it's TOTALLY unique, and for that this movie stands alone and ranks as one of my favourite films of all time. (The truly daft ending with rain falling on Dune that would kill all the Sandworms and therefore end the production of the Spice, is the only thing that stops me giving this movie a 10 out of 10)

As an aside, I would dearly love a studio to buy up the rights to this movie, fully remaster it, add in a number of the excellent scenes from the terribly "voiced-over" extended TV version, plus perhaps shoot some new scenes to supplement it, and sympathetic re-do a few of the less successful original SFX scenes with some subtle CGI. That'd be something to behold!

Frankly the title and my score says it all : utter, UTTER garbage. I originally saw this when it first came out back in 1999/2000 and struggled to get through it. As that was around 12 or 13 years ago now, I thought I'd give it another go to see if a) time had been kind to the movie, and b) if my film taste had changed in that time. Apparently, the answer to both those questions is a resounding NO.

There's only so many times and from so many camera angles you can see a guy say the same line before this "wacky" directorial style starts to grate. The story is paper-thin, the acting is laughably wooden, and the direction is as bizarre and talent-free as I've now come to expect from the *ahem* "Director" Steven Soderbergh. Oh and as a British viewer, I found the fact that Stamp explains his cockney rhyming slang to every American he meets, rather embarrassing. And there's not even a decent pay-off at the end of this waste of celluloid.

Complete tripe from start to finish.

I'm not entirely sure what to make of The Dark Knight Rises. I saw it last night and while I DID enjoy it, I still feel that it certainly lacked something compared to the previous two Chris Nolan Batman movies. To be calling it the "Best Movie Ever" is pure absurdity! If was to sum up the problems in a few points I'd say -

1. The story. I just found it rather weak, and with too many holes. For example, why would Bane, Miranda, and all the other mercenaries gladly decide to kill themselves along with the rest of Gotham's inhabitants? We're not talking about religious fanatics here, we're talking about hardened mercenaries. To me, the destruction of one single city doesn't seem like reason enough for them all (including the leaders) to give their lives for. That just didn't make sense to me. Secondly, there just wasn't enough Batman in this Batman movie. His costumed screen-time was tiny, and when he was there he was essentially nothing more than a costumed boxer. I also thought characters (like Blake, sorry, I mean Robin *snigger*) and plot devices (e.g. the entire Wayne fortune being used to fund a fusion reactor, etc) were introduced far too quickly, especially given the slow pacing given to all the angst.

2. Bane. I actually thought Tom Hardy did a great job with the character, showing both his intelligence (at least early on), and also his strength and ruthlessness. Apart from having trouble understanding his speech at times, I thought he looked and acted the part superbly, and I really thought he was going to be a brilliant villain for the first hour or so. However, the back-story about him helping Miranda escape from the "Pit Prison" neutered him somewhat to my mind, as it turns out he didn't manage to escape himself, but stayed put and took a serious pasting from the other prisoners. And then when it turns out he was only playing second fiddle to Miranda anyway, and only doing what he's doing because he cares/loves her(?), he was neutered completely in my eyes. (In many ways it reminded me of the end of The World Is Not Enough, where the main villain (Renard) turned out to NOT be the main villain, and gladly killing himself for "a woman's love"). Plus Bane's death wasn't really a fitting end to a great character.... although I'm guessing that was a sop to the 12a certificate this movie's rated as. I also think the film-makers should've stuck with the concept that Bane's mask is pumping him with the Venom drug to increase his strength, etc, rather than making it some kind of Vader-esque, pseudo-life-support/anaesthetic delivery system. He was something of a missed opportunity in my opinion.

3. The Pit Prison. What the heck is that all about?!? Who's prison is it? Where is it? Why are people put in there as opposed to a normal prison? Why on the surface is it basically just a well-shaft with no guards, or buildings, or perimeter fence, or indeed ANYTHING above ground? Why, when it's so close to a city (as seen when Wayne escapes), does no-one just wander over and gawp down at the prisoners, or help them escape? Why was there a rope conveniently left near the top for Wayne to throw down to the prisoners below? The list goes on and on. For a film series that purports to be (and for the most part actually is) a realistic take on the superhero genre, the whole Pit concept was nonsensical. Also, when Wayne is put in the prison, Bane comes along with him for the ride. Considering the prison looks like it's in the middle/far east, it makes no sense at all for Bane to go all the way there, have a less than 5 minute conversation with Wayne about "torturing his soul", and then head all the way back to Gotham...... Errr, right. Lastly, how does Wayne get out of the country and back into the States, and then into the totally locked down Gotham, with no passport, or money, or gadgets? That kind of thing is just lazy story-telling.

4. The ending. Bit of a cop-out in my opinion to have Batman survive. This is the last of Nolan's Batman movies, so why not take the ballsy step of having him dying for the people? To do the old "hey look, the autopilot was engaged after-all" trick, and then see Wayne sipping a coffee in Italy with Selina Kyle just smacked of trying to tie a nice big bow in everything so the audience can go home feeling all warm and fuzzy. Oh and the less said about the whole "Robin-thing" the better!

That said, there was still a lot that I enjoyed. The visuals are all top-notch, Bale gives another great performance (within the confines of the story), and Michael Caine gives one of his best acting performances I've seen. I also thought Anne Hathaway was great as Selina Kyle and I liked the little touches like the way her "cat's ears" are actually here goggles, rather than a specific cat outfit, and I was pleased we didn't have to suffer any "puuurrfect" style puns at any point! Plus I think Tom Hardy puts in a brilliant performance (even if his character is neutered by the story in the second half). I also like the dark/adult edge to all Nolan's Batman films, and in lots of ways this is the darkest one yet, with Wayne and Batman taking more punishment than ever. Lastly, it certainly has a grandiose, epic feel to it, and I generally didn't feel that the 2 hours 45 min running time felt too long : it's just a shame the story wasn't quite up to spec.

I'd give this movie a solid 6 out of 10. Epic and predominantly enjoyable, but let down by a weak story, and at times, poor storytelling.

I absolutely love this film. The visuals are fantastic - there are so many shots in this film that are so intricately put together and incredibly well designed, it's as if every scene could be framed and hung on the wall as art. With the exception of Keanu Reeves (who would give an Ikea wardrobe a run for it's money in the wooden-ness stakes here), the performances are all first rate, with Gary Oldman in particular as the standout (somewhat unsurprisingly). And while the story isn't exactly the same as the original novel, it's great to see chunks of the original script making an appearance on film. It's also great to see vampires portrayed in a different way from either dinner-jacket wearing counts (á la the Hammer movies), rampaging beasts (30 Days Of Night), or agonized, moping teens (as per Twilight). Great movie all round. 10/10

A lot of people have never seen this film.... and that's a real shame in my opinion as it's not just a superb piece of sci-fi, it's just an absolutely superb piece of film-making, full-stop. I know this phrase is used a lot, but this film honestly is quite unlike anything before or since. There certainly are some Matrix parallels (although this movie predates The Matrix by a year), but where The Matrix was far more mainstream in it's execution, Dark City is anything but mainstream. The casting is superb across the board - Rufus Sewell (never been better in my opinion), Jennifer Connelly, William Hurt, Ian Richardson, Kiefer Sutherland (as you've never seen him before), and the amazing Richard O'Brien in a role he was just born to play! The production is great, the effects are great, but underlying it all is a superb story that doesn't spoonfeed the audience from the outset. A truly great movie that deserves far more recognition than it currently has. See it!

Having just purchased Haywire on Blu Ray, I can honestly say it is worthy of an extremely rare accolade : that of being only the 2nd movie EVER that I've sat down to watch and then found I had to turn it off before the end. (Incidentally, the only other movie I've ever had to switch off before the end was Charlie's Angels 2, so you can see the kind of esteem I hold this film in).

It's worth pointing out that I'm not a teenager (I'm late 30's), I believe I'm well educated, I don't tend to leave my brain at the door whenever I sit down to watch a movie, and I don't suffer from attention deficit disorder. I have to say this because so many positive reviewers like to claim that not liking a film has something to do with a lack of intelligence or "not getting it". So, with that out of the way, I can safely say that I found this film (like practically everything Mr Soderbergh directs), to be dull, boring, pointless, and trying to be far too "arty" for it's own good. The script is weak, the acting is poor, the direction is "peculiar" to say the least, the music/sounds are a constant distraction, and I even found the (alleged) "action" sequences boring and predictable. I'm surprised how many people say they found this movie fresh and new : I found it to be totally the opposite - i.e. seen it all before, and no amount of strange sounds and weird music choices can change that.

My evening of attempting to watch this with my better half went something like this -

Me - "Let's watch Haywire. I bought it today on the basis that the reviews on IMDb are generally good and the cast looks great".

Her - "OK, you put it on and I'll get the wine"

25 mins later

Me - "Bit slow this isn't it? And why is she telling a guy who's car she's just stolen her entire life story?"

Her - "Glad you said that, I thought it was me! I can't stand any of the characters so far and I really hate the way they speak - so unnatural. People don't behave like that!"

5 mins later

Her - "What's this supposed to be? Action? Thriller? What..."

Me - "Not sure. What it IS though is deeply boring, plus I'm getting a headache from that god-awful music and weird camera work."

Her - "Is there a plot, or indeed a point, to any of this?"

Me - "Errr......"

10 mins later

Me - "This is junk"

Her - "You're damn right!"

Me - "Had enough?"

Her - "Yep"

Me - "Fancy a cup of tea and we'll watch the news instead?"

Her - "Two sugars please"

Once again Soderbergh excels himself by taking a potentially exciting genre and turning it into an experiment into tedium. On the basis of this and his last few movies, I seriously have to question his directorial abilities : frankly I'd be surprised if he could direct someone to the toilet in his own house. He's fast becoming my least favourite director with quite the back catalogue of stinkers to his name - Ocean's 12, Ocean's 13, Solaris, The Limey, Contagion, The Good German, to name but a few.......

From now on if I see 4 specific words attached to a film (those words being, "Directed", "By", "Steven", and "Soderbergh") I'll save myself the bother of watching it, and immediately file it under, "Never to be watched all the time I'm still in control of my faculties".

Along with Alien, this is hands-down one of the greatest sci-fi horrors ever made. But in many ways, the monstrous horror of the creature is almost secondary to the paranoia of the men and the claustrophobia of the surroundings. As with Alien, everything about this movie is perfect - from the pitch-perfect casting choices, through the script, the production design and the brilliantly appropriate music score, to the fantastically gory effects courtesy of the FX genius that is Rob Bottin. And talking of the special effects, the mechanical effects of this movie are in my opinion infinitely better than anything CGI can produce. The way they move seems so much more alien than the fluid movements you get from CGI.

Everything in this move all just simply... WORKS.

If you've never seen this classic, I throughly recommend it to see a director at the top of his game, and a movie that doesn't pander to Hollywood committee-based decision-making unlike so many of today's movies. Awesome stuff!

In light of the recent release of the terrible semi-prequels Prometheus and Alien:Covenant, I thought it was time to return to the original Alien movie to see how they compare.

To be honest, almost 40 years after it was made, Alien still has yet to be bettered as one of the finest sci-fi horror movies ever made. It's impossible for me to find fault in this movie, even after having seen it around 10 times. Everything about it is perfect - the set and costume design, the cast, the production, the script, the effects.... everything.

The claustrophobia of the Nostromo has only ever been bettered by John Carpenter's The Thing, and the vision of an alien planet when they set down on LV-426 couldn't be further away from the sanitised view of space that we see in the likes of Star Trek. This movie shows space exactly as I'd imagine it - cold, violent and inhospitable.

The HR Giger designed Alien has become an undisputed classic of design, and rightly so, with the practical effects looking infinitely better than the CGI of the later movies. The cast are all spot-on and believable - Dallas, Lambert, Ash, Parker, Kane, Ripley... all of them are absolutely real and believable (and in TOTAL contrast to the nonsensical and frankly ludicrous characters we find in Prometheus and Covenant). In short, Alien is still one of the finest sci-fi horror movies ever made even after almost 40 years... and that is some achievement.

*** SPOILERS AHEAD ***

Most of what I have to say about this film has already been covered by numerous reviewers here already. However I will still do this review if for no other reason than to do my bit to try to rectify the (currently) appallingly high rating of 7.7 on here. This film doesn't deserve such a high rating.

Like many others here I am a huge fan of the first Alien movie (and Jim Cameron's superb sequel), so when I heard that Ridley Scott himself was returning to the Alien universe to shoot a prequel (of sorts) I was suitably excited and drooling with anticipation. I was even pleased when I heard the new movie wasn't even going to include the Alien as we know it, as in my opinion this actually serves to expand the Alien universe far better than just rehashing the original movie(s) over and over again.

I could merrily talk about the many failings of the lofty and yet simplistic creationist basic plot, the nonsensical cod-scientific rubbish about DNA, the instant healing after the ridiculous caesarean section performed on Dr Shaw, but I won't. And the reason I won't is because at the end of the day, this is sci-fi and while most sane people would PREFER things to make at least a little sense, the sci-fi genre is one where you can get away with utter nonsense slightly more than most.

Instead of that, I'll concentrate on the human elements of the movie, and it is here that this film really looks like amateur hour to me. The simple fact is that none of the people are remotely believable in their attitudes, their actions, or their speech - and this is absolutely unforgivable in my opinion. Are we really supposed to believe that the greatest, and no-doubt most expensive, mission in human history will be undertaken by such a combined collection is imbeciles and weirdos? The first scene with them all together in the hanger (before they see the hologram of Guy Pierce pretending to be old), they all look like a bunch of petulant teenagers, slouching around in their hoodies trying to look all cool and tough. In the real world the geologist, Fifield, wouldn't be trusted with the TV remote let alone a multi-million pound trip to another planet. The rest of them were the usual stereotypes of cowards, "tough-guys", and dysfunctional weirdos that only ever inhabit movies like this.

But the big problem is that none of the "scientists" do or say remotely believable things. For example (and there are MANY examples to choose from) –

1. Taking their helmets off in an alien environment on no more than a quick computer scan (that failed to pick up either the presence of the worms, or the dead aliens on site).

2. Fifield constantly freaking out about absolutely nothing. In the real world the guy would be in an asylum, but no - here he's the obvious choice.

3. "Scientists" immediately touching alien creatures with no care at all.

4. Other "scientists" getting blind drunk literally minutes after making the greatest discoveries in the history man.

5. David opening up a "black oil" "bomb", snapping bits off it and pulling bits out (despite never having seen one before), like he's a child dismantling a Lego house.

6. The lack of Shaw even mentioning to anyone she just gave birth to an alien squid - and then managing to not kill it.

7. The complete lack of any hint of proper quarantine procedures. Ludicrous.

8. The attempt to re-animate the alien head - why they do this is never explained - which then causes it to blow up (again, why this happens is never explained).

And so it goes on and on and on…

Now I can forgive films of the past that fell down as a result of special effects technology being inadequate to fully realise the director's vision as long as the script and characters are believable. This film is the complete opposite - superb visuals coupled with pathetic characters and appalling script-writing. I honestly can't believe that Mr Scott sat down at the end of making this movie, watched the finished cut, and said, "YES! That's exactly the film I wanted to make". If so, he needs to be pensioned off and banned from ever getting behind a film camera again. The line from the film, "Every king has his reign and then he dies", has never been more apt with Mr Scott's movie-making career.

Lastly, what was the point of having Guy Pierce doddering about rather unconvincingly in rather unconvincing old-man-makeup? Simply employing an older actor would've made far more sense. But then again, very little about this movie makes any sense. Yes we can all look really REALLY hard and try to draw religious parallels to this movie in exactly the same way that if we stare at the sky long enough we might be able to make out the face of Father Christmas in the clouds, but frankly I think that's overlooking the blindingly obvious fact that this film is just a bit rubbish really. (I remember people spending hours discussing The Matrix Revolutions, looking for hidden meaning and hidden depth, before everyone finally realised that it was actually just a load of junk. So it will be with Prometheus).

Never mind, at least there are two good Alien films out there. For me the Alien mythology starts with the Nostromo in Alien, and ends with Ripley, Hicks and Newt sailing off in the Sulaco at the end of Aliens.

Save your money folks, and if you really feel the need to contribute to Mr Scott's pension fund, buy Alien on Blu Ray instead.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS BELOW

I saw this a few weeks ago after seeing the various promotions for it on TV and in magazines, and like so many other viewers I was, firstly, misled by the trailer, and secondly, even after quickly realising and accepting that it actually wasn't a fast-paced thriller in the Outbreak mould, I was just seriously disappointed by the whole thing.

For me, the first rule of cinema (in fact, cinema's raison d-etre) is to entertain. Now, that entertainment may come in the form of action, comedy, drama, thrillers, or even horror - a film can be disturbing and horrifying and yet still hold the viewer's attention and therefore by extension, be entertaining. The one single thing that a movie should never EVER do is bore the viewer. And bore me, this movie most certainly did. I was looking at my watch literally every 10 minutes after the first half an hour. I should point out at this stage that I'm not a teenager with the attention span of a goldfish due to being weaned on video games since the age of two : no, I'm in my late 30's and have a very broad appreciation for movies of all genres. Some of the greatest movies ever made may be considered "slow-burn" by many people, so I have no issue with slowly developing movies. It's just that this particular movie was and is (in my opinion) simply incredibly dull.

As has become the norm with a number of Soderbergh's films, random "plot" threads appear and then don't go anywhere : conversations seem stunted and peculiar and also often don't go anywhere : people drift in and out of the story with a feeling that they're there to just fill the running time. And talking of filling the running time, what the heck is with all the montages?? CSI eat your heart out! After the second one all I could think about was the "Montage" song from Team America!

For a movie that was purportedly trying to be as realistic as possible, I just didn't get any feeling of the true terror that would surely accompany such a situation in real life. And along those same lines I was deeply unimpressed with the fairly Hollywood style ending whereby, once again, the Americans very handily find a cure and suddenly the previously killer virus is just stored away with a sample of bird flu. Phew, close call huh? Hmmm yes, very real and true to life I'm sure.....

Matt Damon, who has some decent movies under his belt, just wondered around looking confused and (dare I say it) bored. Gwyneth Paltrow was "off'd" within minutes so was basically wasted, and Laurence Fishburne (looking even more portly than ever) did his now standard post-Morpheus "talk slowly and deliberately in order to convey gravitas" routine. Kate Winslet however did a reasonable job of NOT looking too bored, which she should be congratulated on.

But none of the actors are really to blame here. That I lay squarely at Mr Soderbergh's door. For a man capable of directing some very good films (Traffic, Ocean's 11 and Che, for example), he's also MORE THAN capable of directing some complete dog's dinners (Ocean's 12, The Limey and Solaris anyone?) - and this unfortunately is one of them. The whole thing was just deeply deeply boring and uninvolving. And in that respect it totally and utterly failed my test of good cinema - to entertain. A generous 2 out of 10 for the cast.