ukcommando

A quirky comedy that could just as easily have been a TV hit, and to some extent it has that kind of feel. Some fine performances from the cast especially the late Ian Bannen.

Jackie O'Shea lives in a quiet little village, which is beset by the kind of gossip normal in such communities. When he finds that the lottery has been won by someone in the village, Jackie is obsessed by finding who the winner is. After a lengthy process of elimination, Jackie concludes that his friend Ned must be the winner.

But noone has seen Ned for days, so Jackie pays him a visit only to find that Ned has died of shock in his armchair in front of the TV when the lottery results were announced.

Realising that with no heir, Ned's winnings won't be paid out, Jackie persuades his friend Michael to impersonate Ned in order to claim the winnings, but things soon start to get very complicated as they attempt to keep up the facade.....

Not a blockbuster nor a 'split your sides laughing' type comedy (though it has it's moments) but thoroughly enjoyable all the same.

Can't say I've ever been a huge fan of Tom Cruise. But out of films of his that I've seen, this has to be the best!

It goes to show that if you keep cranking them out, sooner or later you're bound to come up with a good one!

Mind you, the film is so good (esp with Ken Watanabe in the other leading role), that it doesn't by any means depend on Cruise's performance.

I'm afraid I have to agree with much of Ericho's comments. This film just appeared shoddily made, and just looks like a budget price sequel compared to the first film which had Matt Broderick and Rupert Everett who frankly are in a different league to the acting in this film.

In the first live action film, Gadget was genuine and well intentioned, but a complete bumbler. In this film though, he just comes across as an arrogant, self-righteous, irritating pillock. His actions in the opening scenes of the film, persecuting an old granny for exceeding the speed limit by 0.3mph just destroy any sympathy for the character.

As for Claw, well they have attempted to bring the character more into line with the cartoon portrayal. Fair enough, but there's no explanation at all of how he has changed from the suave businessman Sanford Scolex of the first film into the shady character with the croaky voice in this. Also there's no menace at all in the acting of the character, which just appears to be some guy in a trenchcoat waving his claw around randomly, with a voiceover added later!

Also, what happened to Brenda Bradford who developed the Gadget technology with her Father? In the first flick, she was the love of Gadget's life and the film ended with them together, yet there's not even a mention of her in this film. Are filmakers so arrogant nowadays that they can't be bothered to provide even a flimsy explanation?

They really shouldn't have bothered making this, but it appears as though the studios are more than willing to dish out any rubbish to a child audience!

Mind you Elaine Hendrix does provide some eye candy as G2, but that's another matter........