sammyb

I literally struggle to believe that this movie is so utterly terrible. Rian Johnson clearly has no idea of how a trilogy works. The second movie in the trilogy needs to build upon what has gone before, or it renders both pointless. It is easy to subvert expectations but not so easy to subvert them in a satisfying manner. The cast do their best with what they have but the script is terrible, badly paced and has plot holes that you can fly a star destroyer through. The decades of Star Wars history are ignored in favour of lame jokes and muddled mysticism. It appears the Rian Johnson Effect has done for Solo but this is the movie to blame

I enjoyed this, against all my expectations. The guy who plays Solo is OK and by the time I got halfway through the movie, and I stopped comparing him to Harrison Ford I really warmed to him. Pacing is good, action set pieces are entertaining . Solo and Chewie work well together and most of the characters play off one another well. The only really poor character is Keira, played by Emilia Clarke, but the problems with her were due to Clarke's wooden acting more than the writing. It's a shame that the Rian Johnson Effect has turned away many people because this is the first Disney Star Wars movie that I have liked.

There is practically nothing to praise about this film. While I enjoyed both the three previous Damon films and the under rated Bourne Legacy, this is all too obviously a shameless attempt to revitalise Damon's career.

Greengrass and Damon's all too public tantrum with Tony Gilroy mean that he is not involved in this. Greengrass is so arrogant that he thinks that he needn't bother with a writer and just co-writes it with the editor.

The script feels like deleted scenes from previous movies, which gives it a sort of" greatest hits of Jason Bourne performed by a tribute band" feel.

Matt Damon looks bored throughout the film. The music tries to suggest that very important events are taking place when in actual fact Damon is just wandering about.

Tommy Lee Jones may be the first zombie caught on camera. Vincent Cassel shoots a dozen extras, which means that he shoots more than he speaks.

Julia Stiles ate all the pies. Only Alicia Vikandrer makes any effort to breathe life into the leaden script. Given the terrible character that she is saddled with one wonders why she bothered.

SO MUCH SHAKY CAM. Wouldn't it be nice to watch a Bourne movie without getting motion sickness or a migraine, the way that you used to be able to do before Greengrass ruined them.

Don't bother watching this and hope that Greengrass doesn't bother making any more.

I was genuinely surprised by how entertaining this movie was. I don't share most people's apparent surprise by how effective Colin Firth was in the role of Harry Hart, a well spoken , immaculately dressed but utterly committed secret operative of The Kingsman. Harry has a conscience and a mistake made several years ago prompts the selection of a seemingly unlikely wannabe recruit to the Kingsman's ranks.

The cast are all excellent, with young Taron Egerton seeming to be a star in the making. Only Mark Hamill is weak in his cameo.

Production quality is excellent, the script is funny and there are some fantastic set pieces, with good pacing and a genuine sense of danger at the end.

Films like Kingsman , The Man From UNCLE and Mission Impossible Rogue Nation merely serve to illustrate what a lazy uninspired cash grab Spectre was.

This is a very stupid movie. Its based on a stupid idea that a stupid director stole and tried to sell to a stupid audience. Thankfully, the majority of the audience is not stupid enough to pay to watch it, so there won't be a sequel.

This is one of those movies where actors spout garbage while standing in front of green screens. There is no character, no plot, no suspense and no humour.

Of the element that was supposed to sell the movie- the fight scenes- they seem to take place in bad visibility, suggesting that the special effects weren't up to snuff.

this is a movie for people who thought that the Green Lantern didn't have enough cgi and that the Seth Rogen version of the Green Hornet was too intellectual. Steer well clear.

Allegedly based on Max Brooks' innovative book this film throws all intelligent thought in the bin during its failed pursuit of thrills.

Even if one is prepared to ignore the fact that they've turned one of the most intelligent books of recent years into one of the most idiotic films, the entire movie is an abject failure on almost every level. The sense of global devastation was realised much more effectively ( and much more cheaply) in the Resident Evil films. Resident Evil also worked far better as action movies with a zombie theme.

The script is full of gaping examples of stupidity that make it impossible to identify with the characters, especially Pitt's who is supposed to be a well educated experienced UN investigator. He makes absolutely moronic decisions time and time again.

The acting is generally substandard, the direction woeful ( its almost impossible to see what is happening in the action sequences)and the audience I saw it with laughed several times at things weren't meant to be funny.

Also, for the most expensive zombie movie ever, its hard to see where the money was spent. Many scenes supposedly set in the USA were obviously shot in Glasgow and look nothing like Philadelphia.

Watch Resident Evil or 28 days later on DVD instead.

The Zombie King is a strange movie. Its hard to work out who the target audience for the film is. Its too cheaply made and silly for a mainstream audience or family audience to enjoy it.

Zombie audiences are unlikely to want to watch a zombie apocalypse movie that features zero gore. Kiterally. Zero gore!

Comedy fans won't enjoy it as it isn't funny. It contains, no jokes, no slapstick, nothing that could be considered funny.

Furlong and Feldman fans will probably be let down as the two American actors are just brief cameos. The rest of the cast are very bad actors.

I was bored watching it and had forgotten about it the next day.

well this stinker certainly didn't live up to the hype. I was expecting a smart science fiction story with a clever twist. What I got was a badly paced action movie with plot holes that you could drive through. Resident Evil: Retribution was smarter than this.

Gordon-Levitt looked bizarre in his make up and it seems that Willis will do anything as long as its paid. Quality control is not an issue for him any more.

The pacing is very weak and several sections drag on forever. The actual idea of Loopers is one of those things that a film student says, will be clever but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. How does the premise work? how does the career of a looper work? who would be a looper in the first place? PASS

This movie is a complete waste of time and money. The script is non existent and the action scenes are idiotically simplistic. It was filmed as a PG 13 and had crappy CGI blood added in post production to make it seem hardcore.

The acting is , as you would expect, lousy. None of these people were really ever actors. Even if they were they wouldn't be able to do anything with this awful script. Charisma Carpenter appears so briefly that she is unmemorable..a pity since she is the only member of the cast with any talent. Talented fighters like Jet Li and Scott Adkins are underused and get no chance to show off their skills.

The final fight between Stallone and van Damme is a joke.

How stupid is this movie? the villain is played by Jean Claud Van Damme. The character's name is Jean Villain.

The appearances by Arnie and Willis are just cameos and consist of them reliving crappy past catchphrases over and over again. When Stallone appeared with the other two my thoughts were 1) all these guys are bald but only Willis admits it 2) how many phone books is Stallone stood on to be the same height as Willis?

Wait for it on TV is my advice..and pray they don't make a third.

I wasn't sure about this film when I saw the trailer. I'd only see Renner in MI4 so I didn't know what to expect. I hadn't been a huge Bourne fan but I'd caught them all on DVD. This was the first film in the series I'd seen on the big screen.

Its not perfect, but then neither were the Matt Damon ones. It was pretty good though. Things really improved with Rachel's involvement. The scene where Renner and Rachel meet, after Renner kills 4 or 5 assassins in a stunning sequence)is fantastic and its high octane all the way after that. There are some reflective moments which give the talented leads a chance to shine and the two have fantastic screen chemistry together- ironically better presence than Weisz has with her real life husband in the disappointing Dream House. The big action scene in Manila is jaw dropping. The tag scene sets things up for another film that I really want to happen. So what's not perfect?

The problem is that all the flashbacks to Ultimatum are not needed and slow down the opening of the film. Bourne is gone and the film should concentrate 100% on the new characters.

STILL WANT THAT SEQUEL THOUGH

This movie was seriously over-rated. Oscar nominations? Nothing about this film is worthy of that honour. Brad Pitt cannot act, is not likable or engaging.I don't think I've ever been impressed with him in anything.

Jonah Hill is Jonah Hill.Again. That's getting old.

There is a lot of talking- which is a nice change from the constant cgi in most big budget films- but its all passionless.I don't think that anyone involved in the movie cared about what they were doing or saying. If they can't be bothered why should the audience care?

The movie was pure pablum.

I'm writing this review because I'm tired of seeing self-styled "reviewers" who clearly haven't been paying attention ask questions that were clearly explained in the film itself.

MI4 is a beautifully made action adventure thriller that ramps up the tension and showcases some stunning action sequences. All of the performances are fine, there is not one weak member of the cast. The humour is enjoyable and evolves naturally from the character dynamics within the team.

To set the record straight (spoilers beyond this point ) the opponent in the climax of the film is a formidable fighter because he's a Swedish former special forces commando. Not Russian. Swedish.

Watch the movie if you're trying to pretend your reviews are worth a damn.

There is nothing about this that needs to be seen on the big screen. I was unaware of the content, knowing only that it was based on a best seller.

The movie is incredibly long and slow paced. The lead female is unattractive and unlikable. At times the movie really dragged, then something unpleasant would happen. It seems that some people think that being cynical, controversial and bitter equals some higher artistry. Not in my opinion. Its not exactly a thriller..in fact its painfully slow. The final twenty minutes are very tough going.

There is apparently some debate as to whether the following films in the franchise will be made as the movie didn't make much money. I personally don't care if they are made or not but I hope the makers realise that some who saw this will flatly refuse to watch a sequel.

I am unfamiliar with Tintin ( or more accurately have never had any interest in him) but I was dragged to this to accompany a child.

What a long movie it seemed to be. The animation is good- in parts very good- but the script is a mess. There's just running around and utterly stupid set pieces. The humour is just poorly done slapstick. I won't go into the plot further as I don't want to give spoilers but its predictable and lightweight.

None of the characters are memorable, Tintin is a bore. To be honest the dog is the only likable one in it.

The kid I was with thought it was okay but that's all. His parents and I hated it.

The idea of a movie version of eighties television series the a-team didn't appeal to me at all. I assumed that they couldn't possibly capture the things that made the series so special. I have been proved wrong.

The A-Team is side-splittingly funny, action packed, clever and sexy.

I loved every single frame of this movie and sincerely hope they make another. The dialogue is witty and clever- and very quotable.

The stuntwork is amazing. I actually bought the DVD and this film is enjoyable even after several viewings.

The actors all do a great job in updating the iconic original characters.

This is an entertaining movie with good performances and a positive vibe. It is beautifully shot and looks exquisite. The characters are charming and likable. I normally find Julia Roberts a bit wearing in lame efforts like The Pelican Brief but I enjoyed her performance in this.

This movie prompted me to seek out the book on which it is based.I can think of no higher compliment than that.

I think we've all been in a similar situation to the one that Julia finds herself in at some point in our lives. Perhaps we can't all have the resources to actually have an adventure like Elizabeth's but it was certainly pleasant to share it with her on screen. Give it a watch.

what was the point of this inferior remake? really?

I don't think casual moviegoers were begging for a new version of the karate kid and fans of the original didn't want a remake?

of all the remakes out there this is by far the most cynical, lazy, exploitative money grabbing cash cow. The whole thing is a constructed showcase for Will Smith's son. Jaden Smith is not a very good actor and is not believable in the role at all.

There was no need to make this movie. It offers little in the way of entertainment.

Do yourself a favour and go see toy story 3 instead..the a-team..i think shrek 4 is still playing.

I was not fond of either TWINE, DAD or Casino Royale so I went to see QOS with some trepidation.

I had some slight hope that we might get something with a Fleming feel as Craig apparently " became" Bond at the end of CR. No such luck, QOS is a generic action movie with nothing memorable about it.

There is a great deal of action but its all somewhat derivative of Bourne.I didn't feel there was any originality in the action or the script.

There is surprising little romance either, although for those females that find Craig deeply unattractive ( like me) that is perhaps not so surprising.

Olga Kurenyo is competent but not very distinctive and Gemma Arterton steals the movie..unfortunately she isn't around for long.

Dame Judi Dench is very good. Title song is excruciating and the score is mixed..at times good at others too high tech and tinny.

Villain is pretty weak and scarcely a formidable enough opponent for 007.

not impressed

It is hard to believe how bad this movie is.The presence of Jeff Fahey should have been a clue as should the queen of trash Emily Booth.Suffice to say they are not the worst actors in this.Even one of the has beens from the failed remake of Crossroads ( as Brad the High School stud!)

doesn't give the worst performance- despite an American accent that makes Christian Bale's look good.

That dubious honour goes to Tony Alueh..who appears to be channelling the ghost of Mr T.Probably a bad idea as Mr T is still alive. No cliché is left unused,no piece of scenery unchewed

there is so much to recommend about this film.

From the opening scenes in which Hugh Jackman finally gets to play James Bond through to the chase sequences in the underground waterways of London Flushed Away represents the love,energy and British wit of Aardman animation.

There are a number of moments which caused this adult reviewer to laugh out loud..including singing snails, Sir Ian McKellen's homage to Larry Grayson and a French mime artist on a cellphone..literally.

The cast are all excellent with Hugh Jackman almost recognisable as the voice of Roddy and Jean Reno displaying comic talents that I would never have guessed at ( especially after the Pink Panther).

There are so many jokes and ideas tucked away that you need to see the movie at least twice to take them all in.

Genius

after all the controversy surrounding the reboot and the casting of Daniel Craig it comes as a surprise that Casino Royale is such an unmemorable movie.

It begins well with a very nice black and white and( after a woeful title song)has a spirited free running chase.

Unfortunately after this it all goes wrong. The pacing is slow, the action non-existent and Mads Mikkelson is the blandest Bond villain ever..in fact a couple of times I couldn't understand what he was saying.

Eva Green should have been a good Bond girl but is merely a repetitive damsel in distress,the photography is mediocre and it all looks like a Sony commercial.

To those like myself who don't play poker the poker scenes are slow torture and the torture scene is unintentionally hilarious.

David Arnold's score is his best yet but that is enough to save this bomb.

this is an excellent adventure movie with some spectacular stunts and pyrotechnics.

Cruise acquits himself better than expected and Hoffman is on top form as the villain.However there are no weak links in the cast.

In amidst the pyrotechnics there is a convoluted spy plot with a very dark edge...certainly the squeaky clean IMF organisation of the TV series is long gone.The locations are excellent and unusual, photographed with confidence and aplomb.Simon Pegg provides some welcome humour as a technician.

This film makes the forthcoming Casino Royale seem irrelevant.

Mission Unmissable

I must confess that I have never heard of Dirk Pitt before seeing this movie and am therefore unable to make comparisons to the book.However I would certainly get Sahara on DVD and recommend anyone who hasn't seen it to do so.

Its a terrific action movie which for once doesn't belittle female viewers.Penny Cruz is resourceful and brave as the Doctor trying to track down a plague in Africa and doesn't just stand around waiting to be rescued.What a refreshing change for Hollywood!

Matthew McConaughey makes a sexy and charismatic action hero and has a great foil in Steve Zann as his wisecracking sidekick.

There are some fantastic and original action pieces,great locations ( the Solar Plant looks amazing! was it made especially for this movie?) and a breakneck pace which allows one to skip over the implausibility in several places.

Apparently one of the writers is sueing because of " changes to his plot".Diddums! what may or may not work in a book probably won't work in a film.The only effect this has had on me is that I definitely won't bother to read the book..although they are not aimed at women anyway.

I can't see how anyone could not love this movie and eagerly await the next one...

Its sci fi Jim but not as we know it. The new series of Dr Who is pretty awful.

Mediocre acting,a rushed and derivative script full of juvenile humour and some sloppy effects made this a train wreck of a TV series.

I imagine those raving about it are doing so because its called Doctor Who when the saddest fact of all is that it bears little resemblance to the classic of old and has no real identity of its own.It could easily be one of dozens of generic action adventure series and that is the real loss here.

Eccleston is a fine actor but was wasted in the first episode.Whether his Mancunian football hooligan catches on remains to be seen,Billie was adequate but the rest of the cast are poor with Noel Clarke singled out for worst performance.

This movie isn't actually awful and indeed it has some fine moments but it is a poor substitute for the excellent book. Large measure of the failing must lie on the shoulders of Pierce brosnan who, while charming enough, is far too limited an actor to make this work. The whole thing has a TV movie feel to it and its one of those little inconsequential movies that you can watch if you've nothing to do but you wouldn't miss if you'd never seen it. Nothing wrong in that but the story was inspired by true events and this sugary fairy tale treatment is below what the tale deserves