AdderCowley

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is an absolute brain-dead, action packed spectacle which to only the simplest of minds would be an ordeal rather than entertainment. Put simply it's dumb.

The actual movie starts out fine, a sumptous fight scene in Shanghai essentially introduces the war between the Autobots/Humans and the evil Decepticons. After this impressive spectacle it goes downhill from there.

Once you look beyond the special effects (which of course are excellent) there really is so little to feed off, I was literally stunned for 2 1/2 hours (its duration). There are so many things that annoyed me that I was almost laughing ironically every time something happened, by the end because it was all so predictable.

Bigger does not mean better. This was the biggest problem for the film and the reason why the first was so much better as it was far more understated. Revenge of the Fallen claimed to be bigger than the last with bigger fight scenes and more robots. True there is more fighting in this instalment but it all seems so pointless after 2 1/2 hours of watching the same boring trash and unfunny material.

Furthermore we barely see anything of the new robots or indeed the old ones because of the increased number of 'characters' from a dozen to 40. Many of the new intriguing characters such as Soundwave were barely used because the writers couldn't balance out the film between 40 odd robots, even at nearly 3 hours. Also the transformers that do get some screen time didn't seem believable. Only Jazz would say "Punk-ass decepticon" for example and certainly not Ironhide and Optimus Prime, there is no continuity.

Another major problem of this films was its handling of stereotypes. I mean who green lighted the twins? Somebody needs to go and have a serious chat with them about the way the world works. "We don't - we don't really do much reading"- Surely a quote which perfectly describes this dump pile of a movie. Some of the banter is funny, most of it isn't and some of it is disturbingly bad. While the twins were depressingly bad, megan fox's character , who is introduced draped over a motorbike in very short shorts, I mean really short, is just depressing.

Sure it made the 10 year olds behind me hoot with joy but seeing it filled me with sadness that not since Return of the Jedi had we seen such a despicable depiction of a person in a kids film. What was more worrying was this wasn't in order to show the vile nature of a villain but as a form of entertainment for 12 year olds.

Talking of 12 year olds, the toilet Humour was consistent, unfunny and often rather ferocious in its assault. Humping gags were repeated on several different animals (and robots), b*****k jokes were used and I'm pretty sure Megan Fox dropped the F-Bomb at some point. Toilet humour is never funny so why constantly repeat them? At least in the first film the transformers didn't reach this level and weren't spitting at the humans, trying to 'come on' to them and probe them with tentacles coming from their backsides. While the first film was hardly subtle it didn't bludgeon us with a stick like ROTF.

As one would expect the acting and script were non-existent. Jon Voight, the only actor with any reputation has wisely departed and has left a huge acting void.

But who needs actors when you have huge CGI robots and explosions lighting up the screen?. Never has a movie had so little plot and yet been so hard to follow. Watching it was almost like watching two films about robots which had two different scripts as events seem to have no relevance or link to each other.

Huge plot devices are used such as prototype lasers destroying devastator, jet-fire destroying himself to upgrade Optimus Prime, and a random piece of the cube (first film) activating and destroying Sam's House. Utterely random, incoherent rubbish happens in this film that I was almost left stunned by its idiocy. And finally what was the point of the Mexican kid? Despite all these criticisms however one thing about this film that I admire is the effort which has been put into the CGI. I don't mind a lot of CGI (I'm a fan of Star Wars for god's sake) and I really admire the effort that was put into making the films CGI creations look real. They do and you can where the £200 Million budget went, clearly on effects.

Also the music was excellent. Steve Jablonsky certainly knows how to compose an effective score and his music often lifted the film to at least an acceptable level of emotion. Indeed his music arguably makes the forest battle scene which is probably the best scene in the film because of its raw emotion However as usual visuals are no match for good story telling and Transfomers : Revenge of the Fallen falls way short of that mark.

Jurassic Park was a pioneering film in a number of ways. Firstly it showed that computer technology was the future of film making, secondly that dinosaurs were not the monsters we perceived them to be and finally that a film can be successfully adapted from a book. Jurassic Park accomplishes these things and more.

I was amazed when I first heard this film was originally adapted from a novel. Indeed Jurassic Park is a classic piece of sci-fi fiction, written by respected author Michael Crichton. The book documents man's relationship with nature and his struggle to control it for financial gain.

The film itself does follow along this route but deviates for the mainstream audience. Primarily this is a suspenseful thrill-ride rather than a philosophical piece about man's desire to harness the power of nature. There are some parts of the film that explore these ideas but nowhere near the intensity of the book.

The movie is quite dissimilar to the book. The characters for example are almost completely different. Alan Grant for example likes children in the book but hates them in the film. Hammond is far more egotistical and manic in the book while characters such as Arnold, Gennaro and Wu barely feature in the movie. Not really a criticism but if for some reason you've never seen the film but read the book then the film doesn't follow the plot to the letter.

What really stands out however in this film is not the people but the dinosaurs themselves. For the first time the dinosaurs are perceived as mere animals rather than monsters. Even the predators, the "villains" of the film, are forgiven for only "doing what they got to do". In that respect the dinosaurs do get a lot of notice in this film.

Furthermore Jurassic Park introduces two of the biggest characters in "monster-movie" history. The T-Rex and the Velociraptor. Through the great power and size of the T-Rex and the evil, calculating persona of the raptors we find some of the most memorable characters from the "monster" genre and also some of my earliest memories of fear.

Certainly the kitchen scene and to a lesser extent the T-Rex attack scene are two of the most atmospheric and suspenseful scenes from that time. The kitchen scene in particular is a classic.

However Jurassic Park is not just a film that re-introduced the public to dinosaurs, it is also is one of the first movies that pioneered CGI on the screen. For the first time a film was shot with CGI being a major part in the make up rather than just being a shiny extra. This means that Jurassic Park was an pivotal moment in film history and one of the most important film from the 90s. Certainly from a technological point of view.

However this is not just a film that relies on technology to pass it by. It does have heart. Spielberg does put emotion into the movie. The scene with the Brachiosaur and the landscape with the herbivores is a beautiful piece of cinema. So to is the music which helps ratchet up the tension but appropriately creates a sense of melancholy and reflection when needed. Combined with the CGI this gives the film excellent production values and really hammers the idea home that these are sentient creatures not Godzilla like monsters.

So in conclusion Jurassic Park, while being a simple monster film on the surface, is so much more at heart. It is a film that helped pave the way for CGI, gave audiences some of the most memorable pieces of cinema in history, while making the excellent novel palatable on the big screen. A groundbreaking classic.

Wall-E is a film which will surpass the highest expectations, entertain the most critical of critics and most importantly stir the stoniest of hearts with its subtle emotion and superb animation. It is a film which is a benchmark for all animated films and kids films for years to come...

Wall-E contains possibly one of the most endearing characters in cinema history, ironically a small waste-disposal robot left on earth for 700 years. What this immediately brings is sympathy to a character which would not usually endear audiences. However the subtle use of animation in the eyes and movements of Wall-E an incredibly lovable character. His appreciation of nature only further highlights this.

Indeed the impact of Wall-E is so profound that the film needs little dialogue to win the hearts of the audience. In the first 30 minutes, in a similar vein to other animation benchmarks such as Wallace and Gromit, there is little dialogue whatsoever between any of the characters. This again highlights the mastery of pixar which is able to create a character not from words but from actions. This of course leads to the importance of the animation.

Wall-E is one of the most visually spectacular animated films presently. With the dusty, rust covered Wall-E, the beautiful sequence of Wall-E in space skimming his hand in the ice rings of a planet and the clinical appearance of the axion human ship, Wall-E is a sensational film, and one could be tricked into thinking that the animation is the centre piece of the film, similar to Finding Nemo.

However the focus is not on the animation, Pixar have already proved they can pull off realism but what the film is all about is a love relationship between two completely different characters. WALL-E, a sentimental outdated rubbish collector, and EVE a futuristic vegetation scanner. This awkward relationship is especially interesting because put simply both characters are robots and supposedly emotionless. However Pixar pulls off an emotional story line with Wall-E winning over the heart of his love interest, EVE, as well as inspiring the human race to return to Earth. Is there a more poignant and successful technique to show the power of compassion in cinema today? Indeed Wall-E is a film which ranks up with some of the best Pixar films to date. That is saying something when claiming a film is better than Toy Story or Finding Nemo. However Wall-E very much takes a different angle than these animation giants. While TS and FN were trying to prove that computer animation could be pulled off in varying degrees of complexity, one could argue that Wall-E is the first time Pixar has looked to focus on the characters of the plot rather than the animation. I believe for the first time Pixar has been able to focus on the story rather than the animation. Not to say that the animation is poor, obviously it is brilliant, but Pixar has gone for a new angle in Wall-E, and it has very much worked.

Thus Wall-E is about the entertainment of the audience rather than trying to impress us with animation. Indeed the animation is spectacular but if anything the character of Wall-E is more so.

This film has many good points, however what it lacks is decent screen time...I was surprised that it lasted little over 90 minutes which really cut out a lot of the tension and drama. When the credits role you think...OH...that's it? It was pretty disappointing.

This meant what was a pretty decent film became little more than a quick suspenseful flick.

However this does not mean it was a bad film, Will Smith was effective and held up well on his own for the majority of the screen time, albeit that time being short. Furthermore the scenes of a deserted Manhattan were amazing. Most of all this film was decently scary. The use of darkness obviously emphasised the fear and suspense which is rife in the film. The CGI isn't brilliant but does work, while there are some seriously scary moments.

All in all I am legend does have its shortcomings- its far too short and therefore seems rushed and ill-conceived. However it still does create a certain amount of suspense and Smith is reasonably good in this thrilling film.

This idea had so much potential, anybody who's read the comics would attest to that, and yet it is unbelievable that the film was so mediocre. A question one might ask is whether or not Anderson (and no I can't be bothered to look for his full name), did actually see the films prior to this disaster. Anybody knows that both franchises are built around suspense. The first alien film for example has barely a dozen scenes which contain the alien and yet it delivers so well. Indeed Anderson does seem to attempt to employ this technique as the first 40 minutes or so are completely devoid of action trying to build to the confrontation between the Alien and Predator. Thus around half the film is spent leading up to a moment which itself is poorly conceived, not convincingly suspenseful overall. This was mainly because of the weak editing as well as the lack of decent dialogue, just one liner clichés.

Secondly there is a chronic lack of fighting within the film, indeed there is more confrontation between the humans and the aliens when compared to the two alien groups fighting each other. There is one fairly action packed scene around half way through but the camera angles are so obscured and the scene cuts from one angle to another so much that in the end little is actually visible. The film does seem to focus around the humans which allows the director to focus on the emotions of the situation, however this is not done well, as none of the characters (with exception of the Scot) do not appeal. This is most especially evident with the main character Lex who appears to spend one half of the film telling people that something bad will happen, and the other half snivelling and crying, somehow surviving death or worse while her colleagues are brutally stabbed, maimed, skinned, impregnated by face huggers or skewered.

However the main problem of the film is that it builds no suspense, creates no drama and is a measly 90 minutes long, not to mention the lack of gore (which was usually a convention in the other films). No skinning is actually shown (as the humans are merely hung up) and the chest bursting scenes are usually implied or cut away at the goriest moment. Secondly the pacing of the film is very bad. This attributes to not only the short length of the film but also the lack of suspense. Aliens are born and mature in a matter of minutes when in the previous films they take hours if not days to become adult. This completely loses the suspense and terror of the previous films.

Like all mediocre action movies these days (because this was an action film not a thriller that the Alien films were or the action/suspense genre of the Predator films) is that the graphics are decent. Unsurprisingly it seems that the animation have taken priority and that the actual work on set (which is rumoured to have only been in production for 2 1/2 months) shows. Interestingly the computer graphics are in stark contrast to the mechanic puppets and predator suits used. Usually I'm a huge advocate for the use of puppetry in such films but in this case it was poorly done and thus juxtaposed badly with the animation becoming tacky and dated. So even on the graphic front the film fails to impress.

Thus an idea which has had so much speculation and is seen to have so much potential was poorly directed, edited and executed. Very disappointing.

I totally agree with every positive review of this film. It is both funny and imaginative as well as entertaining however it does not capture the magic of the first two films.

As with every director Alfonso Cuaron wanted to put his own mark on his work and thus this film is incredibly different from the first two films directed by Christopher Columbus. It seems that while Columbus preferred to focus on the actual book and narrative, sticking jealously to the plot, Cuaron preferred to branch out from the norm which had a positive and negative effect on the film.

The film is as I said very enjoyable, entertaining, thrilling and in most cases downright funny. However the negative part is that there was a loss of continuity. This means that basically for me the film no longer felt like the books. Things like the animal sweets, the big swinging pendulum and the toads singing seemed completely out of place.

Another example of lack of continuity was Michael Gambon as Dumbeldore, who's almost energetic performance is in stark contrast to the wise, plodding Richard Harris who captured Dumbeldore perfectly. Gambon is less convincing. By contrast David Thewlis and Gary Oldman are great in their respective roles.

All in all this is not a bad film, however it fails quite badly to capture the magic of the first two films of the books

Having finally been able to see "The Golden Compass" after the years of speculation I have to say I'm disappointed. When watching a book to film translation you obviously have to change things, switch events round, change the appearance of characters but I personally found the changes ineffective and unwarranted.

For starters...The Golden COMPASS? What annoys me about this is that it is obviously cooperate driven: oh...people might be put off if it was called Northern Lights...maybe not enough of our potential demographic haven't read the book etc It felt contrived and uncomfortable. And the problem is that they always rammed it down your throat, calling it the oleyphemometer and then saying as if a sidenote also known as the golden compass. Why not just call it by its proper name and be done with it...

Also the casting I felt was strange. Although an vast star-studded cast there are few decent performances. Daniel Craig is even more pouty and obnoxiously arrogant than before and does not have a huge presence in the film. Furthermore Ian Mckellen voice acting, while good, just didn't feel right in a huge, hulking bear. The child acting was also annoying as the girl who played Lyra would speak in a middle-class British accent and then either say "ain't" or some other slang and spit...

Christopher Lee, one of the great villain actors being used for 3 minutes? what a waste...

That is not to say that all the actors were below par, I felt Nicole Kidman played Mrs. Coulter rather well and was seductive and evil as Mrs.Coulter should be and the golden monkey was genuinely scary. It seems as though they expended all their energy in creating Mrs.Coulter for Nicole Kidman and then not bothering with the rest. Also Sam Elliot (as Mr.Scoresby) had his moments.

Now with my main quarrel, something which pretty much everyone who has read the book will have been reciting 100 times, the ending...What an anti-climax, the fight scene outside Bolvangar was a pretty mediocre ending for a film which lasted past the 2 hour mark...and also the fight between Iorek and Ragnar as though it was an afterthought to be included. Maybe that should have been the end scene?...Again it was a late decision to remove the Northern Lights scene thus they had to find another way to end the movie...another cooperate influence? All in all this popular fantasy novel has been sloppily transferred to cinema using a huge wealth of acting talent, money and writing material to create a pretty low-average blockbuster...its a shame because I did enjoy the books and was expecting something better than this...

Yep...it was funny, no doubt about it...however there was really nothing else to be honest. For years people had debated about this film...Will they do something new? or will they just regurgitate a longer version of the TV series. The answer is very much the latter although of course the plot was a lot more ambitious than the typical TV episode.

Pretty much this means that it was nothing special as entertainment and really will be remembered for the ridiculous amount of money this film has grossed however that does not mean it was a bad film. It was funny and sometimes even witty and definitely an improvement on the latest incarnations on TV...although some of it was just random...

All in all the Simpsons movie delivered for the masses what they probably were expecting, a funny, often hilarious 75 minute TV episode, which unfortunately branched out little from the 20 minute showings so many of us have come to love...

Air Force One is what you would expect, a trash action-thriller which borders almost on propaganda, but that does not make it a poor film. Obviously there is a constant barrage of American patriotism (how more patriotic can you get than the American President retaking a terrorist controlled air force one), but this does not make it a film which most people would vomit over. It is rather surprisingly quite entertaining.

Despite the fact that the film is 2 hours long (a time which could have been easily shortened with the cutting of a few meaningless scenes at the end) but the film doesn't let up on the action or the excitement. Predominantly the film is a) watching Gary Oldman taunt the white house or executing passengers and b) watching Harrison Ford walking around looking confused in the baggage area, however there are quite a few gun fights and up-close-and-personal fight scenes which punctuate the banter and keep the audience gripped. None of this is particularly new but nevertheless is entertaining.

The acting is surprisingly adequate. Most of the characters in the film haven't got particularly challenging roles, only Gary Oldman, Glenn Close and Harrison Ford who have to stretch their ability, which the best is of course Gary Oldman who it seems has to support almost the entire film with his menacing image, which he pulls off rather well. Although his accent isn't brilliant (see 5th element) he is still by far and away the most menacing of the baddies and the most interesting character. It is particularly satisfying to see him humiliate some of the bureaucratic and arrogant politicians in the white house: "no one does this to America..." All in all Air Force One is obviously not a masterpiece and does not make any pretense to be so. What it is is a largely entertaining pretty well done action-thriller with the right amount of dialogue, action and suspense which keeps the audience thrilled.

The Lost World was a film which had to reach a very high standard. following the impressive Jurassic Park which pioneered the consistent use of CGI and arguably one of film's most symbolic creatures, T-Rex.

Because of this a pretty good film was slated. In one sense justifiably so as the Lost World could never compare to the first instalment in the franchise. It was always going to be an impossible task to improve on the first film which had so much going for it and unsurprisingly it is not the best film in the world.

In some respects this film does shoot itself in the foot. The end sequence is silly, there are numerous unexplored errors and for the raptor fans, they get a pretty raw deal. Furthermore the Lost World continued on the premise that children would be able to survive a dinosaur attack while mercenaries with guns could not...

If you leave these issues aside the Lost World is a respectable movie and no matter how many times I watch it does entertain.

What I liked was that unlike Jurassic Park 3, it continued the idea of the dinosaurs being animals rather than monsters. Apart from the Raptors which were just as scary and monstrous as in the first film, none of the animals attack for pleasure or financial gain (compared to the humans in the film). They hunt and kill for their basic needs and instincts. One could say that the film follows an ecological route, and criticises all corporate involvement in animal exploitation.

Plot wise, The Lost World is basically an add on to the first film. We find out that there is another island other than Isla Nublar with dinosaurs called Isla Sorna and the now bankrupt Ingen wants to harvest the island in order to ship the dinosaurs back to the mainland.

Hammond, who had recently lost control of the company, however disapproves of this and so decides to construct a team to document the animals in order to gain public support for their conservation. He tries to recruit first film survivor Ian Malcolm who initially refuses.

However when Malcolm finds out his girlfriend Dr.Harding has already gone to the island on her own he decides to rescue her. What transpires is a 2 hour survival movie full of dinosaur attacks, suspense, action and Jeff Goldblum (Malcolm) attempting sarcasm along the way.

While the sarcasm may grate after a while the movie does have some great one liners:

Nick:"Hammond's check cleared or I wouldn't be going on this wild goose chase".

Malcolm: "Well your going to the only place in the world where the geese chase you"

Similarily while the plot isn't that complicated the characters are enjoyable. Malcolm is definitely the funniest with his sarcastic one liners (see above). Roland played by Pete Posthelwaite (a surprising casting as I would not expect to see him in a Hollywood action movie) is especially good as the cold, yet human hunter character in the film.

The only annoying character is surprise, surprise Malcolm's daughter Kelly, who despite spending almost the entire film screaming and whining about the least bit thing (stereotype teenager), is brave enough to do a complicated gymnastic routine inside a derelict house on rusty bars to kick a Raptor through a window. It is an annoying trait in Jurassic Park that in every film there is always an annoying kid.

Interestingly when compared to the book the film is does a good job. Jurassic Park the film was nowhere near as good as the novel but there is a definite improvement over the Lost World Novel in this film. Not saying the book was bad (or for that matter the first film), it was just that I enjoyed the film a lot more. My advice is to watch the film before you read the book. While the book has its moments don't expect it to be a repeat of Crichton's classic first novel.

Additionaly the CGI and models come back with avengence!!! As you'd expect after 4 years of development the dinosaurs look better than ever, and still look pretty impressive. Certainly this film has aged pretty well.

The moving models have improved as well. Supposedly both T-Rex's in Lost World contained twice the equipment of the previous T-Rex from the first film. Lost World looks great and as you would expect from a Spielberg film, has great production values. Locations look sublime with the coniferous forests, tall grass and no fencing making the new island look and feel like a true lost world rather than a science experiment.

Finally I personally loved the look of the vehicles. Certainly this is not a film which will disappoint (or unlike the JP III will confuse you)with its look and feel and as stated before has great production values.

All in all, this is a severely underrated film which was always going to be slated if it was not 100% as good as its predecessor. It is not as good as Jurassic Park but the Lost World is definitely a film you can enjoy. Certainly it will entertain you for its 2 hour duration and has always been a personal favourite. So its unsurprising that I was overjoyed to see it move ahead of the disastrous Jurassic III in the IMDb polls. A well deserved result.

Shrek was possibly the greatest animated film franchise of all time (money-wise anyway) until 3:50 p.m. today, when I started watching Shrek The Third after a lengthy advert prologue. The film started with Shrek and Fiona getting into a variety of funny situations in order to look after the kingdom of Far Far Away for an ill King Harold. The film then goes on to a weirdly funny death scene where Kind Harold dies. After being proclaimed by King Harold that he wants Shrek to be his heir Shrek decides the burden of becoming king is far too great so he, Donkey and Puss go off on an epic (10 minute) quest to find the next heir to the throne, an annoying, obviously unpopular teenager called Arthur (or Artie...hmmm). That's the plot, except for the return journey and the climatic (yawn) end scene obviously copied from the second film.

The film is not poorly executed (the animation is great and there are some funny moments) however there is so little plot that the film becomes dull and plastic. The majority of the characters are incredibly annoying, especially the whining, whinging princesses' who add little, as well as the pointless cameo from Eric Idle as Merlin (who's main purpose appears to cut the action and film time down about 20 minutes) and Justin Timberlake, who played a stereotypical underdog role, which seemed completely out of place in a franchise usually seen as ridiculous and not serious at all.

The major character flaw was that there were too many characters, with too little screen time meaning none of the characters (except for Donkey or puss) were actually likable. By the end of the film you realise that Arthur (Justin Timberlake) starts out as a major character, but in fact he becomes incredibly minor and unimportant. In fact the film would have been fine if many of the characters were not there at all. Many just seemed to have been added into the story to forward the plot in someway, a lazy attempt at disguising the non-existence of the plot itself.

Also the film relies too much on the other two pictures. In reality Shrek 3 is pretty much an add on to the second film. There is so little difference between the films (other than the watery plot) that I began to wonder whether Shrek 3 is comprised of rejected concepts from the second installment (ah-ha dreamworks your devious plan has been un-earthed). What especially annoyed me about this film (apart from Justin Timberlake's and Eric Idle's pointless appearances) was the lack of originality. The Shrek films are renowned for an original perspective of ideas which are conventional stories taken apart for comic effect. This film had no evidence of this, not a single one, except the perception of bratty teenagers, and bratty princesses, which were both stereotypical and completely humourless. The film took all the ideas from the first two films, and then took them for granted. Unfortunately because of its lack of any new ideas, the film became one-dimensional.

All in all while the animation was good and some of the scenes being quite funny, the film was ruined by its incredible lack of originality, as well as its annoying sub-characters and non-existent plot.

Spider Man 3 promised so much but delivered little. Firstly too many villains. Sandman was not really a great part of the film, apart from the device of being Ben Parker's true murderer. He delivered little in my opinion. Secondly, the character of Venom (not mentioned by name) was brought in too late in the film, really he was only used for the climax of the movie. Unfortunately the main flaw of the film was its concentration of about 88% on the relationship between Peter Parker and Mary-Jane. This meant the film was stretched over 2 1/2 hours of screen time, about the same length of POTC: At World's end, which has been severely criticised for its length.

Finally, god, shut up with the romance. There was only about 4-5 fights in the film, about 1 every 1/2 hour. All the rest was Parker and Mary Jane talking...Talking!!!!! All the time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All in all disappointing.

Doom is not a masterpiece. However for what it is, a video game to movie franchise, it does a decent job. I was watching this film when suddenly my parents came in. They immediately sat down and watched the last 50 minutes with me. Surely that's an indication that the film itself wasn't too bad. My favourite part of the movie was the FPS scene. It showed a level of originality which has been absent in other Video game movies, such as the Resident Evil franchise. Another Pro was the casting of the Rock as Sarge and Karl Urban as Reaper. Both made decent performances in the movie.

The level of action was decent and I was happy that the film branched out a bit further than the 90 minute restriction. Furthermore I particularly enjoyed the fact that the makers decided to use models and suits, similar to Alien rather than rely on CGI. It again shows a level of originality that implies the makers wanted the film to stand out and was not there just to make money.

The cons were that overall the acting was not great. The other marines for example, other than The Rock and Urban, did not put in great performances and Rosamund Pike, I think was particularly bad. They seemed an ordinary group of guys thrust into battle. They just didn't seem to act like a group of elite, disciplined soldiers. It just didn't feel realistic.

Another con is that the film was not particularly scary. The actual game is deemed to be one of the scariest games out there to play. So it feels an opportunity missed that the film was not a terrifying roller-coaster ride filled with suspense and was more like a variety of action sequences containing grim monsters.

All in all Doom is a movie which is by no means perfect, is a decent film for what it is. A video game.

Chicken Little is a movie which if had been given a little more time to develop the plot would have been a half-decent film. The film for the first hour or so was surprisingly good. I enjoyed the jokes and the characters were lovable. I especially liked the idea that the film was centered around the aftermath of the tale of Chicken Likken rather than the actual fable itself. It showed a bit of originality which most animated films in recent years (the Wild, Madagascar) have sadly lacked. However after the initial first impression it becomes obvious that the film was, after the aliens abduct fish, rushed into cinemas. There was an opportunity to develop the characters for a bit longer, however that scene is barely over before the climax of the film begins. It means that the film becomes 1-D cardboard thin and difficult to enjoy.

All in all the Chicken Little is the first animated film I have seen which I fairly enjoyed since seeing some of the old pixar films, however its rushed ending means it can be never seen as a classic. Unfortunately the film tries to cram in too much in the last 20-25 minutes, which means the movie has a unorthodox rhythm to it, which fails to work.

To be honest I don't feel Armageddon is a bad film. I found it entertaining and a decent way to spend an evening when nothing else was worth seeing. However there were quite a few things that annoyed me intensely.

Firstly the ridiculous romance between Liv Tyler and Ben Affleck. She could have chosen any other character. Steve Owen for example who is even the right age for tyler as you hear Bruce Willis commenting that Owen's character was "like 5 minutes older than her" Affleck is simply awful. By far and away the best character is surprise surprise Steve Buscemi, who delivered a great performance compared to the young lovers dribbling over each other using animal crackers as metaphors to the serengetti.

The second most annoying thing about this film is that I found the constant America F*** yeah style theme completely destroyed any story that this picture had. You just can't take it seriously when the American boy ran, with the American flag on his shirt to the American astronauts. Also all other forms of life other than America seemed completely obsolete in this film. Every country (especially the middle-eastern countries) always seemed to be in shadow. While every American setting was a slow-mo of some US kids running towards somewhere. Damn it was annoying!!!. Also the fact that the Russian cosmonaut seemed permanently stoned and the British genius is thwarted mentally by Bruce Willis when discussing the drill design. WTF?

Also most of the characters seemed to change or disappear! For example when the company of misfits have been told the outcome of the Earth, one character appears and then you don't see him again EVER! He is only mentioned once when Affleck is shouting hysterically at the Russian saying Two of his friends are know dead. I seem to only remember Steve Owen's lifeless corpse. One, not two.

Anyway back to character development. The characters which seem to change the most are Willis who goes from hard-core driller to sentimental Christian mentioning god every few lines. And Liv Tyler who changes from head strong rebellious 20 year old to weak minded soppy child by the end of the film. The only character that doesn't change (apart form the cosmonaut, but let's face it there hardly going to concentrate on him) is Affleck who is constantly screaming out ridiculous lines such as "Harry I love you". Not great.

To the positives, most of the characters were likable. Bear, Steve Owen and the guy who plays chick are decent characters. Also Steve Buscemi and the Russian were probably the best in my opinion. However this brings back the Affleck situation, and this is where the film falls. Nobody can like Affleck's character. Telling Bruce Willis to chill when Bruce is chasing him on the oil rig just makes himself looking pretty stupid. Also the relationship with Tyler, the I love you Brucey scene and an poor overall performance are strong reasons to say that Affleck was pretty bad I'm afraid.

Liked most of the characters, OK story, decent no-brain Saturday night film but several serious flaws makes Armageddon an average film.

How can a franchise fall so easily from grace? How can a film so completely turn its back on the premise of the franchise (and more importantly the books which structured it)? How can you screw up such a basic but entertaining idea? Well, Jurassic Park III does a pretty good job of the above.

Starting off with this film butchering of the themes of the series. The whole idea of Jurassic park (the novel and subsequent films) was that it depicted the dinosaurs,for the first time, as normal animals not monsters. I mean Sam Neill in JP even explicitly stated this. The idea of life finding a way was draped all over the first film and The Lost World continued that on, however JP III does not follow this idea in a variety of ways:

The Raptor's can communicate? The Spinosauraus has no incentive to attack the actors but it just does. The raptors are intelligent enough to let the main characters go free at the end but savagely kill anybody else who they believe have their eggs?

Another instance of the slaughter of Jurassic Park is the look of the Dinosaurs themselves. Many are new or have been given a makeover and most look and act more aggressively than the previous films. (I mean the Brachiorsauraus went from a typical mottled green look to a red and green monster with sharp teeth?).

On the DVD extras the people who worked on this film boast about how real the animals looked but I honestly didn't see that in the film. Apart from the fact that they jiggle and are fatter than before there is little inspiration. Come to think of it all the new dinosaurs appeared to be either red or green or a bit of both...

However what really annoyed me (and it seems many others) was the killing of T-Rex and the emergence of Spinosauraus. They have a sort of Kenobi-Vader Showdown where T-Rex (the master who hunts only for the need for food) is killed by Spino (the learner who seems to rather enjoy chasing the people around and kill other dinosaurs for no reason. It is explained why they are chased by Spino but the reason is so pitiful its an obvious after thought.

But getting back to the point, Killing off T-Rex? Big mistake. It has sparked quite a debate about who would actually win. From what I've heard Spino was bigger but T-Rex was designed to tackle large prey while Spino was more equipped for fish. No matter what some people may say about Spino being bigger that doesn't necessary mean it would be a better fighter...I mean a basketball player is bigger than a boxer but who would you pick in a fight? Although obviously for the makers of JPIII Bigger=Better. On a side note I wonder which T-Rex it was from TLW?

As stated before little plot was involved in the film and being only 90 minutes long that is unsurprising. 90 minutes? Where did the suspense go from the previous two films? The reason for this? It's a non-stop action film, it is claimed. Fine if we're talking about a video-game movie but not for Jurassic Park. I look at it this way, on a pure entertainment level at least The Lost World has 30 minutes more value than JP III. The makers completely lost the focus of the franchise in this film.

The makers to their cried did try to put in a little continuity i.e. the smashed windows of the car in the compound for example, as the film was based on the same island as TLW but it seemed poorly done. Why is the island so different from before? From wide open grassy plains and coniferous forests to tight claustrophobic jungles? A lot is left unexplained...And the raptors? That deserves an article on its own...

Another stupid point was again the idea of kid being able to survive a situation where full grown adults with guns cannot. 8 weeks? When experienced mercenaries barely survive for 5 minutes? Especially when this kid is all arrogant and chuffed about his exploits on the island and would probably get eaten because his big fat head would get wedged in the tankers trap door:

Boy: "Oh look at meeeee I collected T-Rex urine. Aren't I the greatest?"

Grant: "How'd you get it?"

Boy: "Errr. (thinking fast), You don't want to know..."

The final nail though was the death of Alan Grant. Not the man per say but the likability of the character. He was involved, he is now dead, a redundant entity in the franchise. One of the best characters in the series snuffed out in the blink of an eye, tainted by association to this atrocity. And speaking generally about characters, who actually liked the Kirby family or Billy?

So in summary, no plot, no good characters, tired, bored acting, an annoying kid, killing T-REX? Disgrace....

I mean it just didn't feel like the survival orientated first two films, more a cheap monster film. The only positive is they continued to use moving models which is an almost forgotten method in cinema. But apart from that avoid like the plague.

When I first saw this film I found it a disappointment. The historical inaccuracies were terrible, I mean really bad. Not just small mistakes like they didn't use that sword at that time but major characters being killed who didn't die in the the Illiad and also the ridiculous idea of the Trojan war lasting 2 weeks?

Apart from the historical inaccuracies there was the problem of Brad Pitt's acting. It takes about 5 minutes to realise that Pitt uses one method of facial action for each emotion. When he is angry he pouts, when he is happy he pouts, when he is making love... he pouts. Yep that's pretty much it.

Also I found the casting stupid as well (I mean who decided on the actresses for Helen and Hector's wife? I mean come on!). Also the master stroke of Sean Bean playing Odysseus, the only 'good' Greek, ha!...the irony!.

However after watching the film again I am able to see the positives. Despite Pitt, on the whole the actors do a good job. Eric Bana who is a constant danger of being a good actor is the only character I actually like. Hector makes you want to support the Trojans and I found that I supported the Trojan cause much more than the Greek cause.

The film is actually pretty enjoyable. The fight scenes are no Helm's deep or Osgiliath but they still can hold their own.

In short I liked this film because it does grow on you. However it is no LOTR killer which it set out to do. Really its just a combination of decent to mediocre actors saying one liners throughout, with a huge budget for the director to waste.