Rob_P

When critics talk about a movie having two-dimensional characters, they are usually referring to poorly developed characters with no real presence on screen.

This movie sets a new low bar at one-dimensional characters.

I can only think that Guy Pearce lost a massive bet or he owes a lot of taxes and is taking whatever work he can find. Pearce is an actor who is orders of magnitude above this crap.

I thought that '2-11' with Nicholas Cage was a bad cop movie about a bank heist until I saw this.

In a minor role is Michael Bellisario. As a key character in a story arc within NCIS, he was hopeless and wooden. He hasn't learned anything in the intervening years. He also had a minor role in '2-11'. Oh dear.

Donald P. Bellisario may have given the world some great TV shows over the years but he did no favours to the entertainment industry by allowing Michael to take parts in movies.

Now I am going to give you the best news about this movie. Don't watch it and you will have 90 minutes for something more productive and enjoyable.

... a different country had a stereotypical view of what America law enforcement is all about.

Imagine how they would portray the characters as mavericks, cowboys, rogue operators...

Imagine the scriptwriters picked the cheesiest lines to include in the screenplay.

Imagine the director learned about America from other people who hated America.

Imagine there's a small budget for everything.

This show had a great premise and it was failed by the dreadful scripts, the wooden acting (Mr Dingle-Wall especially), the ineptitude of the FBI characters and so much more.

The most believable character is young Lauren Gravitt playing Anna Scott, the main character's preteen daughter. She did something the adults could not - she acted.

Channing Tatum was looking for a dreadful TV series for a project which eventually became 'Comrade Detective'. He couldn't find one and shot his own. He should have waited and used Cypher.

I didn't know whether to laugh or cringe during Cypher.

I cannot believe they are already in talks for a second season of this drivel.

Definitely one to avoid, regardless of how desperate you are or how drunk you find yourself.

This has all the elements of a student made assignment for a minor Motion Pictures class.

The acting is wooden, the SFX are ludicrous, the sound mixing is dreadful, some scenes were out of focus, the lighting is poor, the audio has a hollow echo to it. Dialogue is overwhelmed by the incidental music in places.

The theme music and incidental music are discordant but not in a good way. Loud and abrasive on the ears.

Based on this first episode, I'll be giving the rest of the episodes a miss.

Only two epodes released so far. One in September, one in December. It's ringing alarm bells that it's not all it claims to be.

What is there to say that hasn't been written already?

This is not Star Trek. Name-dropping and making reference to other Trek incarnations make it less interesting.

I do not know at whom this is aimed. The worst character is Mariner, lacking all the qualities expected of Star Fleet personnel.

The bad news is that All Access ordered two seasons before reviewing fan opinions.

Even the most dedicated fantasy adventure fan will want to avoid this drivel.

It's 46 minutes of your time you will never get back.

I've watched work better scripted and acted by K-12 students.

Everything about this show, except for the premise, is wrong. I would expect that a half-decent effort would make this quite watchable.

However, the acting is wooden. The costumes are low-quality cosplay at best. The sound is atrocious. Clear diction from one character and, in the same room, echo and hollowness from another character. The lighting is bad, the cinematography is bad, the incidental music is louder than it needs to be.

It is the very worst of the worst kind of fan-fiction attempt to broadcast something on YouTube.

Fantasy, so it should have elements of magic (magick perhaps) so special effects? Don't bother. Weak and lame.

It defies the laws of physics in that it sucks and blows at the same time.

To be fair, this movie starts well. VA Industries, owned by Elias Van Dorne (Cusack) has improved the quality of life for people by developing exceptional robotic help. This is countered by the development of robots which fight in place of regular human soldiers and the loss of human life has been too great. Racked with guilt, Elias has been developing Kronos, the first truly artificial intelligence which will analyse the Earth and the human interaction in order to make it a better place.

Oops! Kronos determines that humans are the biggest threat and begins to wipe out the human race with its machines... SkyNet much?

Humans are forced to live in shelters underground and forage for supplies.

We see the life of Andrew Davis and his mother who is clearly ill.

Then the title "97 years later".

Andrew emerges from an underground shelter, looking exactly as he did all those years ago... At this point, the plot is given away. Supported by the "no food for me" scene later in the movie.

With Katniss, sorry, Calia a survivor he meets on his travels, he is looking for a fabled human safe haven called Aurora.

Calia gives voiceovers to advance the lumbering plot, sounding like Sarah Connor in T2.

All the while there are cutaways to Elias and another man Damian Walsh (Argenziano) who appear to be controlling things...

--O--

When you learn that this was originally a low budget movie, you begin to wonder why anyone went to all the trouble of adding CGI FX, scripting for Cusack and Argenziano and then re-tooling the movie.

As a low-budget indie, it was probably going to get good reviews although not stellar. It falls between a high school movie project and someone shooting a movie for the first time. It's evident in the acting of the two young leads. I don't know how much of the CGI was original to the movie and what was added later.

Some of the CGI is obvious (when the robot chases them towards the exit) , some of the CGI is not bad.

The movie nods to too many others in the SF genre and comes up short.

Adding Cusack could only have been to make it appeal to his fan base but it didn't appeal to me. His acting was wooden and expressionless. And Carmen Argenziano appeared normal at the beginning of the movie but then was given CGI make up with a white eye and a glowing head.

As others have mentioned, the availability of hair dyes, reasonably good clothing after 97 years of no factory output or sources of food - even tinned food doesn't last that long - means many plot holes remain like open sores.

It's 92 minutes of your life you won't get back. Although it still beats Jupiter Ascending.

Based on the plot, I expected this to be a fairly good thriller. I was not ready for the level of disappointment it delivered.

The first suspension of disbelief was the voice-over in the first few minutes describing Brosnan's character (an aviation company owner) as 52. Come on, it's Pierce Brosnan! He was 63 when this was released, he looked late fifties in the movie. They should have made him 57-59.

Honest, I heard the voice-over and I choked with laughter.

But it simply got worse.

Brosnan is Irish by birth. His bizarre accent was dreadful. I think he was trying to do a Northern Ireland accent - that part of the United Kingdom north of the border with the Republic of Ireland, but it was a real ham of a performance.

Then follows a creepy story ticking all of the boxes for a predictable, by-the-numbers, talented I.T. guy stalker movie.

I took issue with the idea that someone in charge of a multi-million dollar aviation corporation could be so careless as to give out his home wireless password so easily and not change it to something else to secure it.

When the smart house system acts up, no thinks to pull the cable to the internet router.

Why is the I.T. guy using an AC voltage detector to check CAT5 cables? Who was the technical support person employed on this movie? Fire them.

The I.T. guy mentions features of the control system and Brosnan tells him they have been disabled for privacy. Hmm, I.T. guy has your home wireless password and knows the smart home has cameras in the control panels. No chance of some mischief then...

There's a completely gratuitous scene of the daughter taking a shower. To be honest, they could have cut this entire subplot and it would not have been missed.

Even Anna Firel, playing the wife, could have had all of her scenes deleted and it would have made no difference. What was the point of her character? I hope she was paid well.

By the time the retribution angle arrived, I had lost all interest and simply sat on to see what else might turn up. All the expected twists turned up including a night time tropical storm which was presumably included to 'heighten tension' during the last scenes. For the rest of the movie, the weather during the day was calm and the nights were without incident. This sudden tempest was another unnecessary addition.

Best watched with a group of friends who want a good comedy - a thriller it is not.

I have lost count of the number of times I have watched Back To The Future - I even bought the trilogy box set! For me this first in the series will always remain head and shoulders above the other two.

Time travel movies tend to be complicated and often dull. You need to keep up with the plot and when things go awry, you can find yourself lost or just bored.

Not so with BTTF. Even now, 26 years on, I was still sitting on the edge of my seat as Marty and the Doc attempted to get the lightning strike just right - and I KNOW that it all works out in the end.

But that's the draw of this fantastic movie - it continues to thrill after 26 years! Even TV editing for content and character comments does not detract from the spirit of the movie.

Highly recommended.

This is a movie to be enjoyed and not analysed.

In the truest tradition of the "boys' own" adventure stories that were popular in the early half of the twentieth century, this is a rip-roaring roller-coaster ride of your life.

The movies starts with a short back story similar to the first movie. We learn of a ruthless emperor who crosses the witch who can grant him immortality and he finds himself cursed, along with his army, to be first burned and then entombed in terracotta for all time. Such is his ruthlessness, guardians watch over his tomb so that he may never be awoken from the curse and released upon the world.

But Rick and Evelyn's son, Alex, has discovered the tomb and, unaware of the consequences, he hopes his discovery will put Tutankhamun in the shadow. But he has underestimated his colleague who has been corrupted by modern-day General Yang, sworn to resurrect the evil emperor.

Set in 1946, we discover that Rick and Evelyn have not been idle since their last adventure. They are respected members of the espionage community and carried out missions during the Second World War. Now they are entrusted to return a national treasure to the Chinese people.

This treasure is the only way for the emperor to find Shangri-La and be reborn to rise up again.

So you have the back story.

What follows are chases, battles, explosions, death defying stunts, a little bit of love thrown in for the girls, corny one-liners and a great big bag of characters with bigger than life personalities and plenty of good-old fashioned gumption.

The CGI is excellent yet it does not overshadow the plot or the characters.

I will admit to one, tiny annoyance and that was the three characters who turned up at the tower to help them fight Yang's forces. Please indulge me when I say that it was the only bit that stretched the imagination(!) - I know, I know.

Sit back and enjoy 111 minutes of good old fashioned adventure yarn. This isn't Shakespeare but it's very entertaining and I watched it right to the end. I couldn't tear myself away!

If you sat through The Blair Witch, bored out of your skull as three young film-makers traipse around the countryside hoping to make us all scared and you watched in terror as, in the final few minutes at the old house when everything hits the fan... you're in for a treat.

This movie is like those last few minutes - the whole way through! Okay so some of the acting is a bit rubbish. I maybe recognised two or three people from other things. All in all, it is a credible documentary style offering although, what passes for 'real life' acting is a little above theatrical ham for a few of the cast.

No matter, this is a genuinely creepy film. You have to keep reminding yourself that it is only a movie as some of the scenes are quite realistic thanks in part to the shaky hand-held camera footage and what your brain 'fills in' off camera. It's 'mock snuff' but well done 'mock snuff'.

The subject matter is disturbing as the age range of the victims is broad.

Claimed as the first part of a trilogy, I would definitely want to catch the follow ups but only if they were of the same gritty quality and the acting (for a few) was more realistic. The documentary 'experts' were filmed particularly well.

A lot of thought, time and effort has gone into the making of this movie and you will be rewarded if you watch it all the way through.

One of the most disturbing images is of one of the victims, late on in the movie. You might be left 'scratching your head' wondering how they did that.

If you think it will be like Scream or Evil Dead, you will not be happy. It's more of a 'FBI Files' or 'Real CSI' type of movie.

I would say that a bigger budget would allow for some ultra-realistic prosthetic body parts to push the scare-o-meter to the limits.

Be afraid but keep telling yourself, "It's only a movie!" Damn Fine Film.

Apparently, according to sources here on IMDb and on some other motion picture review sites, I am in a minority.

I liked The Happening and for the life of me I cannot explain why.

The cinematography was superb, the pace just right and the acting sublime.

Yes, it is a very good film but it is not a truly great film so I gave it 7/10 stars.

Mark Wahlberg does not fail to impress once again. I'm just a little concerned that he may become typecast in this type of role, yet he is totally believable.

Zooey Deschanel emanates emotion as her life appears to fall apart around her. There are times when I genuinely feel for her character Alma. She is being overwhelmed by what is happening in the world she inhabits and she is already tied up in guilty little secrets she has kept from her husband.

As for the other characters... well, it's not really about them, is it? It's about Elliott and Alma.

And as for the plot? When the cause was first put forward, I felt a shiver down my back.

As much as many people are writing off this storyline as too far fetched, even for Sci-Fi, I find it totally plausible and therefore very, disturbing.

There is a lot of screaming in places, but there is a lot of calm as well. Just try not to read the calm as 'nothing happening'. It's a mass calm that could only really come about as the people realise the enormity of the situation and how impotent they are to stop it.

I picked this up in the bargain section of my local supermarket.

The first few scenes, set in 1922, set up a nice teaser for the remainder of the main feature.

That is where it lost any sense of suspense.

The dialogue was corny. The characters were too flat.

I must admit, the only reason I decided to buy it was for Jewel Staite - she was the only name I recognised - She was great as Kaylee in Firefly and as Jennifer Keller in Stargate Atlantis.

Apparently someone called 'Kellan Lutz' is well known so this may well appeal to his fan-base.

The monsters were never fully explored or developed. I guess that maybe some of the screenplay ending up on the cutting room floor.

The cinematography was fair to middling but the dark scenes didn't have enough contrast at times.

The biggest disappointment for me was the 'crazy credits' at the end where the makers thanked everybody including Mel Gibson, Sly Stallone and then engaged in listing the proponents of the world's major religions, totally unwarranted.

I would have given this one star but for the fact that Jewel Staite was in it and managed to be the most believable character of all.

It's an hour and 25 minutes I won't get back but maybe this will save you from the same sense of anticlimax.

This title was released in the UK as "After Dusk They Come".

I thoroughly enjoyed the Stargate motion picture because it was different. Fast forward a little and I notice something in the listings billed as Stargate SG-1. After a few weeks I actually remember to switch over and I watch it.

It's the one with the replicators taking over a Russian submarine. I am hooked. How could I have missed this show? I start watching repeats, I buy DVD boxed sets of the seasons. I was really disappointed when RDA left and was replaced by Ben Browder and joined by Claudia Black (Farscape was just TOO 'out there' for me.) But I stayed true to it and despite some weak episodes, especially in season 1, it was altogether a thoroughly enjoyable show. And then it ended and Atlantis had begun.

I stayed with Atlantis because it was Stargate and I missed SG-1...but I grew to love Atlantis because it was both different as well as being the same. I even grew to like Rodney McKay - what a great character.

And Atlantis was, for me, cut short. And here is Universe.

I'm not going to apologise. I don't like the way it is written, the (lack of) character development and the camera angles. It's not the 'Stargate' style to which I am used.

I appreciate the predicament in which they find themselves but a series based on a 'ship in a bottle' format is killing this show. Even Voyager had a holo-deck and managed to drop in on aliens now and again.

Young is two-dimensional. He's still carrying a huge chip on his shoulder regarding his private life. Greer is a maverick, too unstable and trigger happy. Johansson is too weak-minded to be a medic. Scott is still too green behind the ears. Eli (Wallace, c'mon, "Eli Wallach"?) is too nerdy to be anything more than tech support at CompUSA or Genius bar at an AppleStore. Chloe hasn't made the second dimension yet. Her character is straight out of Flatland. And they stride yards in front of the long list of 'also rans' who fill the awkward spaces between the main characters' narratives.

Only Bobby Carlisle as Rush has the screen presence to rise above this and he is being overwhelmed by the dark foreboding thread that runs through the script.

I'm surprised more people have not killed themselves on Destiny, given their seemingly unresolvable situation.

The ancient stones provide an implausible 'deus ex machina' in lieu of Asgard beaming technology or the rings device. More implausible are, despite being explained, the huge plot holes such as people turning up after weeks out of the show, supposedly captured by aliens.

I don't want to draw parallels with Enterprise/Star Trek:Enterprise. It was a great concept poorly realised. Even the slight revamp and the whole 'Xindi' story arc could not do enough to resuscitate that show.

And don't get me started on Stargate: Infinity. That was just so wrong on so many different levels.

I wasn't fussed about Babylon 5 but by the end of the first season I was hooked. Then they cut it short and it lost something and then they lengthened it again and it lost even more.

The Stargate format wasn't broken, why did SyFy try to 'fix it'? A revamp or rewrite will not help Stargate Universe now. SyFy should bite the bullet and take it on the chin before they sit down and properly thrash out a worthy successor with the 'Stargate' prefix.

If they do anything, it will be open up the rest of the ship, Destiny, so the characters can develop better and introduce some friendlies who travel with them (and NEVER turn against them) and stir up the mix. Let's knock this auto-pilot, we're not in control, dunno where we're going soap opera off the screens and replace it with something with some more meat and laughs.

SPOILER ALERT.

This movie will spoil your afternoon or "wee small hours of the morning" viewing slot.

I like Marc Singer. He has portrayed good characters in the roles I have seen. Until this movie.

What starts as a promising movie soon disappears up itself with the disastrous cgi'd background and the extreme close up on the person about to die...

Then it gets worse.

A lot worse.

To describe it as hammy acting would insult pigs. This movie goes to the bottom of the ham barrel and scrapes the acting off there.

Apart from Marc Singer's overcooked hamming it up, Mike Dopud stomps and plods around the scenery looking as if he is afraid he might fall on the rocks and his wide-eyed 'manic' bad guy just makes him look like a moron. He isn't menacing at all.

George Stults looks like a deer caught in the headlights. He claims to have been threatened by the other two but his character would have been threatened by a cashier offering him "paper or plastic".

This is really a vehicle for Nicole Eggert as an independent woman getting her life back despite attracting the wrong sort of man... She was unremarkable.

This is not a remake but this is remarkably similar to "Cliffhanger" - seasoned guide, loses someone in a fall, conscience pricked to help out someone else, a missing treasure worth oodles of money and a gang of n'er-do-wells who exploit the guide. Except Cliffhanger was a great vehicle for Stallone and Lithgow. I must admit, Lithgow stole the show.

Even the unintentional comedy was poor. There were times when I wasn't sure if they were using a rubber-faced model as a stand-in for Singer as he tried in vain to storm the weather station (no pun intended). Pressing his face to the door post and his clumsy manner in general did nothing to help his character.

Avoid.

No, seriously, avoid it. Save 96 minutes of your life and do something else more constructive like watching paint dry or grass grow. Or just close your eyes and examine the backs of your eyelids for 90 minutes...

Caught this on TV the other night, so no doubt it was edited for broadcast.

Having said that, what a hilarious romp in the forest! Why are we not making more of these types of films? Unspoiled by irrelevant love scenes or long moments as two people stare into each others' eyes and no 2 Casting was spot on and everyone had a proper role. No character development was really necessary as their behaviour on screen was enough to remind you of someone you know.

I laughed and I cringed, I 'oohed' and I 'aahed'. Even Danny Dyer did well and I'm not a big fan of him. In this movie he was well cast and got many of the good lines.

The opening scenes give you a taste of what is to come later and then it's told in a type of flashback to before the opening scenes.

The scene with the shoulder-launched missile was tragi-comic. I laughed but felt guilty afterwards.

Even the rogues in the forest were believable, costume playing an important part. When Tim McInnery came to his final scene, there was a moment when I thought, "Phew!" and then I got a surprise.

Best enjoyed with tongue firmly in cheek and some friends and a few drinks to loosen everyone up.

I don't know where to start with this movie.

There's not enough time to describe the many 'features' of this movie and how bad they were.

The script was deplorable. Predictable and cliché ridden. The characters were flat and uninteresting.

The CGI aliens are appallingly bad. Imagine 'Doom' creatures, from the popular computer game and a programmer with no concept of how to make something appear to run along the ground. The composite work is laughable at best. Irritating at worst. Cheaper cartoons from the 80's had better running creatures.

The CGI smoke from the ultralight was awful. It looked like someone was trying to spray it with an aerosol.

The CGI water effect on the mountain was good. When the guy put his hand into it and it moved with his hand, that was very good. That's worth one star.

Every single woman in this movie is superfluous and could have been written out of the plot and replaced by more marines.

You would need to be a total sci-fi junkie to want to watch this, if only to cross it off a list of movies to watch.

Otherwise do yourself a favour and avoid this b-movie. b as in Budget, and a small 'b' as in a small budget... Small as in minute heading towards infinitesimal.

I didn't see this in the movie theatre but a local supermarket offered a discount on the 2-disc version ... Hey, why not? I had read other reviews but I like to keep an open mind. I loved "Raiders". There was a tangible presence that hooked you just enough to believe that it might be true yet you knew that it was only a movie. The Lost Ark of the Covenant and the power it could command. Diabolical enemies and a love interest in the very beautiful Karen Allen. I remember her from Starman... (sighs)

Then there was a second film. Enough said.

And then Sean Connery turned up as Indy's dad in "Last Crusade" - OMG, Brilliant! I loved it! More Nazis, including Gail Platt's gay dad Ted, from Corrie... More boy's own story with just a hint that it might be true.

And they all looked as if they performed solid, honest, down-to-earth (with-a-bang) stunts.

Then there was a fourth film.

This is getting like a twisted version of the Star Trek films. Odd numbers bad, even numbers good, except for Indy, 1 & 3 are superb while 2 & 4 are not.

Given Harrison Ford's age, I guess it had to be made in the 50's and that was when communism was the new threat. But Russians on American soil in 1957? Difficult to swallow. Indy's back story of his exploits during the war? Gulp! Cate's make up and costume? Cough! Then it simply descended into set CGI pieces. It went from the ridiculous to the incredulous. Jungle chase and fights? A bit Star Wars VI. No tender moments (remember Marion and Indy on the boat in Raiders and he aches all over except for his eyebrow?) Mutt getting hit between the legs by trees over and over again... Gag! What's with the gophers or prairie dogs? And change ants for scarab beetles to get a scene from The Mummy. Those ants aren't native to Peru. Choke!

Neil Flynn. You are a janitor in the FBI. You played it comic when you could have played it menacing or deeply disturbing.

There is so much wrong with this movie that it would take more than 1000 words to list them all. Regard this movie as a tacked on, non-canon bit of fan fiction.

And there is the nod at the end to Shia LeBeouf picking up Indy's mantle as he holds Indy's iconic headgear. Nope. Leave it alone. Step away from the fedora...

I don't know where they could have gone with a good Indy story. More religious artifacts? The staff of Moses with which he commanded the waters to part. It became a snake (mmm, Indy and a snake?).

The real shroud of Turin, a plot by the Russians to seize all Christian relics and replace them with detailed forgeries then undermine Western religion by exposing them and casting doubt enhancing the appeal of communism - except Indy uncovers the plot...

An artifact that proves the State of Israel was foretold and blessed by God... except the British are the bad guys as they are working with the Palestinians in early 1948... but the Jews are successful even without this artifact.

There are some ideas for "Indy V". Just need fleshed out. But little CGI please and more use of the whip and close up action.

Teenage suicide. Another hot potato for Quincy to deal with.

The screenplay is formulaic. It's classic for a Quincy episode where there's a very strong moral message. Back when this was aired, the emphasis was to make other people aware of the warning signs that could be the prelude to someone contemplating suicide. Withdrawal, depression, loss or gaining of weight, poor grades, etc. Consider it a huge type of infomercial shown in prime-time to a worldwide audience.

I hope that when folks watch this show, they take the contemporary setting into account. The message is still as important today as it was back then. Young people especially still see suicide as the only way out of the pain or isolation they are experiencing. It's not a message to the depressed person because they are already in the grip of a downwards spiral, it's a blueprint for those around them to see what is happening and take whatever action they can to avoid a senseless and needless death.

It also highlights the indifference of peer groups and their ignorance of the victim's cry for help.

Lastly, it showcases the suffering of the survivors and the family left behind. Those trying to make sense of it all with ill-placed blame. Those filled with survivor's guilt.

It's as powerful a message today as it was then.

There's no point in pussy-footing around this issue, taking time to gather facts and comprehend the nuances when a person is heading towards their own destruction.

Even if you do not believe it possible to talk to that person, let someone else know, a responsible adult. Don't try to take it on as a personal quest yourself. Share the burden with someone older and let them lift it from your shoulders. There are plenty of people who can help in a professional capacity.

Quite well-paced and if you'll forgive the obvious teen flick nods - teen hero goes it alone, cops don't believe him, etc. - you'll enjoy it.

To be fair, it's not as bad as I've made it sound.

The characters are likable, even David Morse as Mr Turner - always a crowd pleaser! Nice to see Carrie-Ann Moss do something different too.

The opening scenes with his dad and the drive home were brutal...

But the star has to be Shia LaBeouf as Kale Brecht. If he continues to give performances like this, he's onto a winner.

Well worth the watch.

I'm not a comic book fan so I cannot comment on the purist's view of The Fantastic Four.

Okay, the first film was 'okay' as they learned to deal with their new powers but this was so much better. This movie was like the third season of a popular show. You know, the first season sucks, then the second season starts to get on its feet and the third season rocks! As long as they keep their heads, FF:/// should be as good as Spiderman 3.

There's an easy friendship and banter among the Four although Susan Storm getting naked isn't that cool any more. Okay, we've seen her, let's move on. Tip to scriptwriters of "FF:3", why not keep her clothes on...

The weddings were a bit pitiful... why did they bother? All in all, a decent sequel (they are few and far between folks!) and worth watching.

Enough has been said about the parallels with the Lion King, Gary Larson and the 'male cows' thing. Also the gratuitous violence, larceny and drunkenness. I'm not going there. Just take that as read. There are NO redeeming moments.

There is so little of a plot, you will miss it in the poor parodies of other films. The musical numbers are not that good... no.

I was SHOCKED that Sam Elliott put his name to this... Shocked. And Danny Glover. What were they thinking? As for Kevin James? Meh! He's not that great an actor anyway, this is a perfect vehicle for him.

This film is instantly forgettable - you'll never get these 90 minutes back...

And yes, I did sit through it to the end - otherwise I couldn't be so scathing. I fell asleep near the start and had to rewind to where I nodded off... I'll never get those 10 minutes back either...

Avoid!

Without equal, this is the most puerile, utter rubbish even conceived. It's made Sacha Baron Cohen even richer because people have flocked to see it and part with their hard earned cash.

I reckon only die hard fans will pick up the DVD...

The funniest moments are the interactions near the beginning with those members of the public who threaten SBC with bodily harm if he gets close to them.

As for the rest... instantly forgettable...

Just remember, you'll never get these 84 minutes back...

And think of the hit on your download allowance if you want to see it that way...

Avoid it at all costs.

I'm not going to compare this to the original 1972 version.

• - - - -

Too much CGI and gratuitous long shots of people being crispy fried or snapped in two when they fell during the scenes where the liner rolled over.

For such a new ship, it seemed they picked the lowest tender for construction because so much of it buckled and bent that should have withstood the pressure. Where were the watertight doors? Why was so much explosive material left in corridors? And pointless deaths.

Deus ex machina plot twists and a dull ending.

I like Kurt Russell. I even laughed a little when he said "I used to be a fireman." and I instantly thought of Backdraft (1991). I hope he got paid plenty - this did nothing for his resumé.

Poor Freddy Rodriguez. He should have lived.

But Kevin Dillon dying was a high point.

Despite what I've read so far from the nay-sayers, I have just this comment to make.

If I missed an episode of the original BSG, it didn't bother me. Back then, all those shows had plenty of flashy SFX and no-one ever died - except the Cylons.

I've never watched the new miniseries but I caught the first series of the new BSG and I am hooked.

I'm glad to see that the new BSG is so completely removed from the old BSG. Congratulations to the writers for producing such stirring human drama.

Starbuck a woman? So what? Regardless of gender, the character is brash, pushy, flies a Viper to the edge of the envelope and smokes cigars.

If you're a huge fan of the original series - maybe you should avoid this.

If you're a huge fan of well crafted human drama - don't avoid this.

Oh, and someone previously mentioned not liking James Callis in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine ... which one was he? According to his IMDb bio he was never in ST:DSN (even as a guest) ... perhaps they confused him with Alexander Siddig?

Congratulations to Mark Williams as the second series of 'Industrial Revelations' launches with more facts about the development of the Industrial Age in Great Britain.

As before, Mark presents in a very down-to-earth fashion and indulges in more hands-on activity - getting up close and dirty for that sense of realism.

His easy style and delivery is untypical of the usual 'historical' documentary presenter, however, the viewer still benefits from a concise narrative with delicious editorial asides to camera.

I thoroughly enjoyed the first series and this new second series has not disappointed with the two opening shows.