beatnick49

I have this story-line on DVD and it never gets boring. It's one of McCoy's finest story-lines because it has a lot to use and it uses the material well. This story gives us a good combo of time travel and the Doctor battling off an alien menace to Earth.

The Doctor is in full form here. He's back in charge such as when he plans a strategy on the map, and also gains the trust and alliance of the military battalion. We also see it when he sabotages the Dalek transmat and goes through with his final plan calmly waving off an attempt to talk him out.

We also get to see his non-violence in action. Rather than lob a weapon he places the explosive in the path of the Renegade Dalek (you could say it's the fault of the Dalek for continuing when the there was a bomb in the way), he states weapons are always useless and talks the last Dalek into suicide. The first and last instances show an interesting dark side to non-violence. Rather than be violent, let them do the violence. It's also shown when he rigs the Hand of Omega and tricks the Imperial Daleks into taking it, using it, and destroying their home-world. Debatably the Doctor is indirectly responsible for a genocide. Perhaps he reasons, he didn't tell them to take it and didn't tell them it wouldn't destroy their home world.

We also get to see the Doctor think about actions and consequences in the tea shop. It's an interesting moment and worth considering. It's a break in main storyline, and without sentimentality or moping.

Ace is not a cry-baby as opposed to her earlier episodes. If fact she's curious and eager to help.

The foes are the Daleks who never get old. In fact, these Daleks are improvements; the ability to hover and overcome stairs, a special weapons Dalek, and an impressive warship. It also continues and ends the Dalek Civil War. We also get to see Davros in charge and ruthless and arrogant as ever. Plus the warship heading for Earth, gives a sense of horror and mystery and tells us this could be a formidable foe.

There are also nice nods to past episodes. Group Captain Gilmore is a nice nod to the Brigadier. The actor who played Professor Rachel Jensen was in The Robots Of Death. The undertaker also describes Hartnell's Doctor. The story is set in 1963, the same year Doctor Who premiered in real life, a nice little homage and a meta reference with the TV announcing the premiere of "Doctor..." before cutting to a new scene. Well timed as this was close to the anniversary.

Are there any bad bits? Sadly yes. We have the staple pandering to US audiences with a couple of soundbites to establish the time period. At least two of these are from the US. On top of that, there is the dramatic music that were an unfortunate feature of the series.

That said, they can't dim this storyline.

It's one of the best and well deserving of it's popularity. Truly a Classic.

I read someone said "the beginning of the end" of Doctor Who was The Twin Dilemma. Most likely it was because the Sixth Doctor tried to strangle Peri, or maybe the Doctor was just an all round jerk. I disagree and think the beginning of the end was in the Fifth Doctor era. The cry-baby sexist Adric, the sexualisation of Nyssa and Peri, the use of violence, the Brigadiers breakdown.

This storyline displays the problem of violence. First the bodycount is HIGH. I calculated at least 40 deaths, at an average of 2 every minute. A website puts the body count at 53. Either way this is way too high for a program aimed at all audiences and aired at prime time. I personally hate violence too.

The nature of the violence is also the problem. We see it at the beginning when mind-controlled policemen massacre fleeing prisoners. We see more when the the Doctor gets a pistol and fires at a Dalek out of its armour. The bullets fly off screen so we don't see the Dalek get it. But it's clear the Doctor isn't firing into thin air or for the fun of it. He didn't even have to it anyway. Soldiers were already on the job. This has the resemblance to a mob attack.

More on the violence. The Doctor, who supposedly hates violence, sets out with a rifle to kill Davros. Yet does he in the end? No. Not only does the Doctor abandon his nonviolence, he can't finish the job. Why? Because Davros is able to reason with and talk down the Doctor and talk him out of pulling the trigger. Even though Davros has betrayed his own people, and has fought the Doctor twice before, the Doctor falls for Davros's words. On top of that Davros is mostly blind and mostly paralyzed, and the Doctor plans to murder him. Something is wrong when a genocidal, ego maniacal traitor with a God-complex has the moral high-ground, over the supposed non-violent hero. There's also something wrong when the hero who knows how ruthless and deceitful his opponent is, is convinced to abandon his plan by said foe.

Now I'm sure if the Doctor is coming off lame, maybe his companions can redeem the episode. Tegan, is concussed and spends a long, long time down and out. I'm no doctor but I'm sure she would have recovered sooner considering the bump she received. What about Turlough? Well he's quite sympathetic, always is, But he's not given much to do other than being held captive.

Maybe the people under attack by the Daleks can get us to care. A bunch of people who smoke, sulk and assume Turlough is an enemy. The soldiers are forgettable. The medic's death it overacted. Scratch any hope there.

What about the Daleks? Sometimes a good enemy can help. These Daleks have been nearly wiped out and they rescue Davros because without him they have no future. But turns out their master plan is to assassinate the High Council of Time Lords Why? Because the Councils death will cure the virus. Because there is no cure and they want to go out with a bang? We're never told. If your race dying, save it first, then wipe out others. But then, the Daleks decide to kill Davros for betraying them. Wait aren't you taking your future away? These Daleks are certainly no slave to logic anymore. On top of that, they have resorted to hiring mercenaries and take a lot of casualties. Not only do they plan badly, they fight badly.

The only interest comes from Davros. He's been frozen for 900 years so you can understand his bitterness and insanity. He also manages to recruit a small army, a feat he does well. Plus he's able to talk his sworn enemy out of killing him. Also admiral.

Maybe we could also salvage this episode with Tegan's farewell speech. It's summed up as "I don't want to do this anymore. Goodbye." Rushed, no reminiscences, and no smiles.

All in all, a poor episode. It showed how Doctor Who has gone from being a fun school-excursion experiencing horror and mystery, to an action drama. Perhaps Tegan's line "It's stopped being fun" wasn't just about the killings, perhaps it was an observation on the series itself.

As a child I grew up watching the Classic series; a combination of Sylvester McCoy originals and Tom Baker repeats. I was growing up in a lousy town at the time and to watch Doctor Who with my Dad was a great way to escape it all. To meet McCoy this year was my chance to tell him how he was an important part of my childhood. I used the chance and it felt great to do it. The DVD for this series was what I took for him to sign.

This is a fine send off for the Classic Series. It has a lot going for it. It's back to basics approach for one. This story-line is a simple horror-mystery. Just as what Doctor Who started as. Aliens making havoc on "present" day earth like many episodes of the Third and Fourth Doctors. It avoids journeys into Ace's past like the previous two story-lines. This is about solving what's making trouble and rectifying the problem.

The SFX are back to basics a well. People in Cheetah costumes and warrior clothes riding on horseback. The final confrontation between The Doctor and The Master is a simple lighting effect. That's another strength of the episode. Doctor Who was never about trying to reach the SFX heights of Star Wars or Star Trek. Sadly a number of episodes throughout the series tried to dazzle us with effects that were beyond it's reach and it showed poorly. This storyline doesn't do that. It's a Down-To-Earth approach. This puts the emphasis back on the characters and mystery. The outdoor shooting works too. If the story is going to be in a town or suburb, film it in a town or suburb. It's fitting.

It also has the Seventh maintain his opposition to violence, no matter what. It's good continuity. They established it early in his run, reminded us, kept it going, and finished with it. Anti-violence right to the end. True to character. No sudden changes. As a personal opponent of violence, I like it further.'

It also benefits from bringing back The Master as well. If you're going to finish, why not do it with a much "loved" foe. Enemies right to the end. Plus, if it's going to finish close to anniversary of the premiere, do it with a character who helped define it.

The only bad points. The use of actual horses. I'm an opponent of using animals in entertainment. Plain and simple. Was there any alternative? I don't know. Do I pretend to have one? My criticism still stands. Also, even though this is Ace's home, she doesn't have a lot to do. She mainly has short reunions with mates and calls after the Doctor.

That said this is a good farewell for the Classic Series. This story-line went back to what made Doctor Who great. There's much to love and not much to dislike. A winner.

Movies which don't follow the sugar coated, walk into the sunset, all problems solved, all worth it in the end formula, normally end with defeat, death or narrow, worthless victories. The first lot of films is packed with unfunny, forced "jokes" while the other lot is filled with shouting, drugs, temper tantrums, mental breakdowns, sex, and moping. TV dishes this too. Ghost World's different; it's proof characters can be interesting without having problems, that movies can be smart without people going ape, and it shows movies can be funny without lame, sexist jokes and unlikeable characters. It also shows that there are people besides the attractive and popular, and the depressed and the junkies. This is my equal favourite movie with The Craft and Sucker Punch, for a few reasons; its characters, story, it relatability, and timelessness.

Enid's an awesome character, arty, cynical, intelligent, talented, honest, mostly knows what she wants, stands firm for what she believes, is an individual, and won't compromise or sell out. At the same time, she's cruel (kinda sociopathic), a bit lazy, a bit dishonest, and even a user. However these flaws don't really bother me. She's not the kind of person who expects to be liked despite their faults (aka Brian from Family Guy), and she's under no illusions about who she is. Her death stares are something I wish I could do.

Rebecca, despite the fact she fades from view, isn't so bad. She reaches the point where she thinks a fold out ironing board is cool, adores plastic cups, and disses her former people(forgetting where she came from). At the same time, I reckon her wish to be "normal" was a cop out. However she's not under any illusions about what she's doing and she sticks by Enid for most of the flick despite their drift apart. Seymour's cool. He's happy to stand out from the pack, and isn't asking for much. But he's too self-loathing, and he sells out for a time when he dates Dana, who isn't the one for him, and forgets Enid who genuinely wanted to help him.

The story is great. It's set at a time that doesn't get a lot of attention in movies. Just after high school, but not yet at uni or the workforce. Most movies about young people are in high school or uni. It's setting is great, it could be just about anywhere; large town, city suburb, poor, middle class, but the focus is the characters and plot. It's easy to follow and all parts fit together. I'm never thinking "hey wait a minute, what about what happened...?". It doesn't take the viewers for morons; the characters're smart, they're not begging for sympathy, they know what's happening, they aren't cold hearted fish, they're not MENSA applicants and they're not nunces like the ones in Project X. They're individuals, doing the things they like.

I can really relate to Enid. I love art, i'm cynical, honest to a fault, sarcastic. I love having digs at lots of people too; one of my work places is in Hornsby and it's filled with over eaters, drop kicks, teen smokers, druggies, obnoxious parents, westies and so on. I'm also mercenary to a point, and can look and act cold. I also tried to stay out of the work force, even though I needed work. At the moment I can relate to her loneliness. I barely see my friends; one now has a girlfriend, one is busy, and another and I are taking time out. Others have just drifted away.

It's a timeless film. I'm able to relate to it no matter what stage I'm at; post high school, early uni, even now when I'm in the work force. Now when I'm in my lonely phase and feeling left out. I see a lot of myself in Enid, and I want to be like her; her death stares, bluntness, confidence and wit.

The other triumph is the ending. It's cool. A lot of movies and TV shows end on a sugary, walk into the sunset, happily ever after note. People become attractive, get a job, get the job they want, get laid, get a date, wear a suit, get married, keep their house, realise the benefits of normal. Dexter series 3 descended into schmuck, Six Feet Under gave most characters a peaceful, healthy, happy, fulfilled future life, Blue Heelers ended with everybody moving on, and even Daria ended this way with everybody getting their wishes. Others end with death, defeat, and tears. Dexter series 4 ended in overkill.

The ending is here Ghost World's ending is brilliant. Enid makes the decision not to sell out, do things her way, and be as different from the beginning, but it costs her; she loses her friends, her scholarship,and is deserted. She and Becky part on good terms, but their friendship is not what it used to be, if it exists at all. Becky seems happy with a job, flat, guys, "normal" hair and clothes, but she's upset to leave Enid. Seymour returns to his old life but must deal with his mother who he can't stand. The ending is up to the viewer. Enid's bus ride out of town gives her the freedom she wanted. What happens afterwards? New town? New friend? Suicide? Love? Art colony? It's a good ending. It's got the same feel as the songs Survival by America and Wonderful Life by Black.

Some people have compared this to Daria. But it's different. Daria ended with friendships restored, everyone getting what they wanted, everyone happy, and Daria left the days of Highland behind her. Enid is self confident, Daria was self doubting, Enid took pride in herself, Daria hated the title "brain" (I'd have loved it), Enid is ready to face the world, Daria was withdrawn, Enid was liberated, but Daria took the moral high ground too many times. Daria was an awesome show, but I prefer Ghost World.

A lot of films aren't nice to strong women. The are independent to a point, and in the end, need a man to save them. The film makers are either misogynistic ("Oh yeah, you're tough, but in the end you still need a man"), or maybe they feel a lot of viewers don't want to see women do it for themselves. The women in Snyder's movies are different, they don't need men to come to the rescue in the end, but take out the guys themselves. Take Lena Headey's Gorgo who stabbed the a-hole councilor in the gut, rather than need a guy come to save her.

The women of Sucker Punch are the same, they fight, no men by their side, and do it on their own. They are my ideal movie women, hot and tough. No damsel in distress garbage. There's no make out session with a boy friend, there's are some nice ass kickings, good special effects, dance practice routines,and the guys who imprison and exploit them get their comeuppances. The pay back comes at a huge cost however.

The soundtrack is a ripper :-), and I'm never bored of playing it.

Plus, there are two Aussies in the lead. Yeah :-) Emily Browning, and Abbie Cornish. Brwowning is the new comer, the strategist, and organiser of the break out, while Browning is the reluctant, skeptical, but willing rebel who joins in the plot.

Plus the story is easy to follow.Some flicks with mind warping stories are good, but they're not the only type of entertainment. Not everything has to be Shakepeare or Dostoevsky.

I know this movie has received a lot of flack; mixed reviews, a small profit, and worst movie of 2011 in a recent poll. A few people I've spoken to don't like it either. But I don't care. I'll like this movie even if I'm the only person who does, and even if I lose an argument in public and I am ripped to shreds.

The only down side was that John Hamm didn't get his butt kicked. I would be nice justice on Don Draper.

That said, this goes with The Craft, and Ghost World as my equal favourite movie of all time. Gorgeous iron women, no damsel in distress trash, Aussies in the lead, special effects, easy to understand, and an epic soundtrack. 10/10

Zack Snyder seems like an enlightened version of Michael Bay. He's come up through commercials to fun action movies movies. One of the common features of Snyder's flicks, are hot tough iron women, in contrast to Bay's lead women who always end up needing a man to save them. Snyder by contrast has had Sarah Polley in Dawn Of The Dead, Silk Spectre in Watchmen, and the chicks galore in the upcoming Suckerpunch. In between DOTD and WM came 300, with Lena Headey, as the posh hot iron woman Queen Gorgo, who gives the messenger cheek and reams the traitor with a sword.

This movie is also great fun. the story is easy enough to follow, the Spartans sympathetic, the blood flows, plenty of action, and good momentum. I just sat back and watched the movie go, nothing hard to think about, but not the crap you get on TV. The movie's also got moments of reprieve, where you can take a breath, and then dive back into the next slaughter, unlike Sin City which was non-stop, too much, and thought misogyny and violence against women are okay.

The special effects do the movie justice. They create the atmosphere of the flick, immerse you in the world the Spartans, and makes great escapism.

The music score is good to, epic and dark, sometimes together, sometimes on their own.

And the really good thing is the entertainment, let your brain switch off, go for the ride, and have a good time, at the movies or on DVD, on any night. It's great escapism, forget the political debates, financial news, sport and celebrity gossip, this helps one forget it all. No political agenda, no melodrama/temper tantrums/mental breakdowns/drugs/domestic disputes/corrupt cops. This has a set of characters you like, good SFX, nice action scenes, good momentum, easy story, and a tough hot queen. 300 delivers.

300% pure fun.

The superhero/superhuman has often been scrutinised, parodied, or brought down to earth within the world of the comic book or movie screen. The Incredibles looked at how superheroes would cope if forced into civilian life. The Civil War posed the question of whether superheroes are subject to the law or, by virtue of the work they do, immune from it. The Civil War also looked at how superheroes and superhumans would react to the question. Kick Ass, showed what would happen if real people decided to become masked vigilantes. Watchmen, even though based on a graphic novel written before either The Incredibles or Civil War, takes the scrutiny and parody in a different direction.

In what is Snyder's best movie to date, the superhumans are "super", their abilities beyond other humans. However, their "hero" status is dependent on the public's perception of them. Masked vigilantes, with abilities, are popular when they first emerge in the pre-war America (1920s-1930s); they can pose with the police, they smile for the camera, they are depicted on war planes and can act gay in public in early post war America, and are also happily received if they reveal their secret identity. Their "hero" status is only sustained because of positive public opinion. The Comedian a sadistic, racist, womanizing, rapist, who shoots his pregnant girlfriend (all unknown to the public) is a hero because he fights for his country. Whether people know or even care about his tendency to delight in burning Vietnamese alive is another matter. Ozymandius, is popular because he has given up heroics, and is the Bono of the movie. Roarscharch is hunted and regarded as a criminal because he is a masked vigilante, even though he gives low lifes the what for.

This movie, also questions, just what is the hero. The person who saves people, the person who protects, the person who punishes? The Comedian protects his country, but has no altruism about him. Roarsharch still has childhood issues, and still holds a grudge to women, even though he is incensed at the murder of a girl, but inflicts punishment on crims and we may say, good, the guy deserves it. Ozymandius decides to protect people, by killing people, sacrificing lives to preserve life, and honestly believes he is doing the right thing.

In the 1970s they become unpopular, possibly seen as thugs without oversight. In the 1980s, any superhuman who acts outside the law is regarded by the public and listed under the law, as a criminal. This deconstrunctionist approach to the super hero mythos is one of the strengths of the movie. The characters are just so interesting to watch. Even if they're unsympathetic, this makes the "heroes" a joy to engage with, and a help make the 2 1/2 hour length more than worth it.

The other joy in this movie, is seeing ratbags suffer. There is a certain joy in seeing muggers, child killers, and prisoners, mutilated or dying in gruesome. I actually laughed Roarshach gave the child killer what for, tossed cooking oil on the inmate, shove the guy in the tilet, and when the priosner got his arms sawed.I reckon inside a lot of us, there is a desire to see people like that, to get it, and get it good.

Another good thing about the movie, is Silk Spectre II. Snyder had strong women in his last films, and he keeps up the trend in this one.

Another point of this film I like is the twist it puts on the portrayal of communist and American leaders. Breshnev is not the fat, balding stibble faced gorilla, and Castro is not pudgy, with a bushy beard chomping on a fat cigar. They are tall, well built, serious, and know what they're doing, Nixon and Kissinger by contrast are fat, bloated, balding, slugs.

The other strength in this film is it's solid story, even though may predict the twist, it's well told, and has momentum and keeps it going, it balances action, character development, story, and background, and it has few if any loopholes. It also looks at the inherent violence, and self destruction of humans.

This whole movie, is just all round engaging. I was never bored when I watched it a year ago. Interested all the way. Only looking away to make comments about it, to my friends.

Snyder has made great films in his career; Dawn Of The Dead, 300, and now this; his best one yet. I'm looking forward to Suckerpunch.

Thnak you Snyder, for Watchmen.

Some critics and viewers have criticised Kick Ass, because of the character Hit Girl, for her swearing and (to a lesser degree) violence. I personally think Hit Girl is awesome (the daughter of Lisbeth Salander and Dexter Morgan), and I also think the criticisms miss the point.

Kick Ass is advertised as an outright, slapstick comedy, with a simple story, when it is really a dark comedy/satire which (as a friend put it) deconstructs the superhero mythos. Still, this movie had plenty of moments that made me laugh. The guy leaping from the building, Kick Ass's crush on his teacher, Hit Girl's joke on Big Daddy, the car scene, and others.

The characters are mostly really likable. Kick Ass has decided that he will stuff what others think, and he will help out people in trouble. Even though it comes at a price, he continues. Hit Girl and Big Daddy just want to take down the mafia, fix what the law has failed to do, and avenge the lady who was Hit Girls mum and Big Daddy's wife. These are things that many of us have probably wanted to do, and thought about doing.

Another success of Kick is it's (as a friend put it) deconstruction of the superhero myth. Watchmen created inverted versions of DC superheroes and villains (The Comedian/Joker), and looked at how the world might treat masked, skilled vigilantes and super powered humans, if they actually existed. Kick Ass rather looks at how real, average humans would get by if they became masked vigilantes. Kick Ass is stabbed and hit by a car, Hit Girl loses her father, and Big Daddy loses his life. Kick Ass and Hit Girl do not come out of this unscathed.

The movie is also a satire of society's attraction to violence, and it's satire of itself. During the torture scene, the TV stops airing it. The viewers, despite, being disturbed at the scene, race to the internet to see it. It could be seen as sending itself up. It's as though the makers knew the movie was going to be controversial, because of the violence, but people would go in, aware of what they in for.

The next success is Hit Girl. She really steals the whole thing, and that is a good thing. She is a break from the monopoly of swearing being the monopoly of boys. She is tough, confident, and...well kick ass. They way she skewers the crims is fantastic. People who criticise the movie simply for the fact she is a violent, swearing 11 year old, just don't gell with me. It's their opinion and they're entitled to it. But really, what age is appropriate to mutilate people and drop the c bomb? The criticisms hypocritical, the boy in Role Models swore like a trooper (with the F bomb) and I heard nobody complain.

As a comic book fan, and movie goer I really liked this movie. Bad guys get chopped, the movie takes shots at itself, Hit Girl is fantastic, and it's funny. I had a real good time with this film.

I saw an advance screening of this four days ago and I was not disappointed. This movie has everything that made the first one great, the characters and the good story. It also has some nice welcome additions such as influence from Pan's Labyrinth, and a new character.

The great thing about Hellboy: The Golden Army and its prequel, is the characters. These are characters who are not tall dark and handsome, completely flawless, but are in fact quite "human" (despite their abilities) while performing outstanding feats. They are also so sympathetic. The movie also features character development. Hellboy is not tall dark and handsome, but fat, red, bald, and has a stylised beard. He likes having beer, cigars, and (in the prequel anyway) working out. More importantly, he like cats, in most movies the heroes are dog lovers but Hellboy likes cats, a major pluss in my books. Even though he is the strongman of the team, he is resourceful, skilled and innovative. In a lot of movies the tough guys will treat the nerds as a joke, but Hellboy is a close friend and confidante to Abe, and love Lisa to the extent that he will give up his cats for her. Liz is also a great character, she is not slim, long haired and big busted, outgoing, but rather she has an oddball hair style, is toned, her bust size is of no concern in the movie, and will lash out if provoked. She is not a damsel in distress, with Hellboy needing her help in both movies. She is also a capable fighter with firearms. Abe, while being the nerd of the group is not a typical nine gram weakling with buck teeth, but is well spoken, able to use a gun, and functions as survellaince and forensics for the team. Johann starts off as the streotypical by the book yes man, but later turns into a character ready to break the rules for his close friends, and capable of outwitting Hellboy.

A great feature of this movie is the character development. Abe show that he too is overcome with love for a woman and is unable to express his feelings, and tries singing pop love songs to woo her. Hellboy and Liz go from a loving couple, to a bickering couple (although the argument does interfere in their work, and Liz defend him from a hostile crowd different from other movies with bickering couples). Johann starts off as a lackey, but turns into a maverick like his team mates. In the end they all put each other first. We also get to see Hellboy as a boy, living as a typical kid, watching TV shows featuring puppets, believing in and waiting for Santa, having a bed time story read to him, and going to bed with a cowboy gun. I liked that.

All round these are human characters with human concerns, Liz feels uncomfortable telling Hellboy about the baby but tells Abe (their mutual friend), they scuffle of "their stuff", Hellboy likes to shave and keep beer in his locker, Hellboy and Johann fight in the locker room, Hellboy and Abe get drunk together and talk about women, and all feel the pangs of love.

What is also good, is that Guillermo takes influence from his own move Pan's Labyrinth and places them here. It works well, blending fairy tales and the occult.

A good scene is while Hellboys father is reading the story, Hellboy imagines the human, elfs, dwarfs etc as toys, as kids would. Not epi humans.

My only gripe is that Liz's role was downplayed. Although she does contribute great;y, burning the tooth fairies, making the deal with the angel for hellboys life, melting the crown, and carrying the crown.

A great movie all round. Worth it whether free or paid for.

This movie delivers gore, social commentary, makes good use of modern special effects and has a good diverse cast.

Like all Romero movies there is plenty of zombie feasting in this movie. Few are spared as limbs get torn of, people are chewed into, blood flows from a belly button and numerous zombies crowd over lone people eager for a good meal.

The movie also carries on the tradition of Romeros social commentary of the time in which he is living. This time it is Cowboy Bush's America. The division of rich and poor, the iron fisted rule, crony capitalism, and bread and circuses to keep the poor quiet. Nice work George, very accurate if I do say so myself.

The movie has the zombies as more sympathetic than the humans in a number of respects; Big Daddy cares for his subjects whereas Kaufman does not, the Zombies eat the humans merely because the disease makes them want to while a number of humans enjoy killing zombies and use them for entertainment and target practice. There are sympathetic humans however such as Riley, Slack and Charlie, and the poor residents of the city.

This movie also adds a new dimension to the zombies, giving them a leader in Big Daddy (a zombie with emotion and greater intelligence than the other zombies), a hierarchy with Big Daddy's lieutenants, sees them reliving their pre-zombie lives, gives them learning abilities and new killing techniques (though these last two dimensions were touched on in Day of the Dead which I have not seen yet) including guns, knives, and petrol with fire.

The movie also has a diverse cast playing a good characters, with Simon Baker as the pragmatic leader(an Aussie, yay) Asia Argento playing a confident and independent female lead, not merely a love interest, Robert Joy playing a mentally ill person with good marksmanship, John Leguazamo and Dennis Hopper also play their parts well. Also the movie is a representation of the New Hollywood with the acting abilities of other nations on display including Australla, Italy and Colombia. Modern day special effects are also put to use, but it doesn't ruin the fun or the gore. On top of all that the movie certainly isn't hard to follow, and can be just good plain fun as much as a social comment.

Good cast, good social commentary, good fun, easy to watch, a nice effort from cast and crew. 9/10.

This is a good movie that doesn't pull any punches, in terms of it's message and it's visuals. It is also just good fun.

The message of this movie is clear. That Western society in the late 1970s has fallen victim to consumerism. We are stuck with it, we don't really like it, but at the same time we want it, we like it, we live in it and we are addicted to it. So much is it apart of us that the we insticively come back to it. It is probably no acciddent that the zombies resemble shopping dummies are repeatedly shown. Like dummies and zombies we are practically lifeless and attracted to and apart of the shopping mall.

The movie is also really good fun. I just had to laugh at some the scenes in this; a car driving around a shopping mall looks so comical and the zombie getting it's head sliced off by the rotor was funny as well. There were plenty of other good scenes that had me laughing. As well as the funny scenes there are plenty of scenes of creative violence in which no punches are pulled either; the zombie copping the rotor in the head, a truck sending a zombie flying, a head reduced to pieces of meat, chunks of flesh ripped out by the teeth before our eyes, a machete strait through the face, a fountain becoming a zombie pit. All in you face. Even so there are moments of reprieve and it is not a nasty free for all like the nasty, over the top and over rated garbage heap that is Sin City (Sin S*** House) (the only sin there was the making of the film).

The music is also good. Goblin create an attractive, eerie and fitting tune. I wish I could find the soundtrack to the original film.

And it is better than the remake. It is just so much fun, you can sympathise with the characters, and it much more entertaining. I remember beleiving I'd had more fun with the original than the remake. With Dawn of the Dead 1978, "The original and the best" is a very fitting title.

Fun, strait to the point and better than the remake, Dawn of the Dead 1978 is a good entertainment.

This movie is good.

The concept is simple, two strangers meet up by chance, and fall in love. However unlike the love films we are accustomed to, this film, ends on a somewhat positive yet open note.

There is mostly quiet movie, but like the Japanese film Dolls (which I reviewed just a few minutes ago) the lack of dialogue works. This is a movie about love and just a night together in both the crowded and deserted parts of the city (which are deserted because of the congestion). The main point of the movie is what the stars are doing, sitting in the car together, meeting up again, eating together, sleeping together, and just getting along and being friends and lovers.

The movie is also well shot with some nice shots of Paris and and appealing looking hotel and restaurant.

9 out of 10.

I saw this movie late last night and while I saw only one hour of it, I liked it very much. It is a great film.

There is a lot of silence in the movie but it works. In the tradition of the French film, Friday Night, it is a movie without dialogue that delivers.

On top of that it is just a nice movie in terms of nature and visuals. It is story of love, no violence, profanities, heroics, or sex or clichés. The photography is wonderful, that scene of the couple walking through the snow beneath the lamp really stuck with me. Our subjects are in fact tragic heroes, giving it a degree of realism. Two of the stories end in tragedy, while the third is bitter sweet. It should also be said that though the characters do not say much they are largely sympathetic. They just want to stay with or be with the ones they love.

I might also add that the women in this film are just so pretty and petite.

Can't say much but this is great good movie.

9 out of 10. Nice work Kitano and cast.

This movie succeeds in many respects, that it is the prototype of modern zombies, and many movie situations. It's also good as to where the emphasis is (story and characters) and that it has substance.

The emphasis isn't so much on the zombies but on the characters and how they deal with the zombies; the debate as to the best defence, the escape plan. The characters (aside from Harry Cooper) are sympathetic, Ben is just trying to keep the zombies out and figure an escape, Barbara is shocked and delirious, Tom and Judy want to stay together, Helen trusts the judgement of others and cares for Karen, and Karen is unwell. The movie is not boring either, it doesn't drag out, and long.

Not only is it the beginning of the zombie genre as we know it, it's also appears to be the beginning of the concept of being besieged that make up many horrors and sci-fis. While there is a debate in the farmhouse, the zombies know what they want and they all want it. And while they aren't a team they do not fight amongst themselves. In modern movies where the protagonists are besieged, the enemy is intelligent, physically strong, fearless, stealthy (in some cases), unusual, works together, often has superior numbers, and has often never been fought before. A number of these factors are possessed by the zombies in this movie. The besieged protagonists in many movies have to deal with limited resources, frightened members, injured members, and an enemy from within. This concept has been passed on to numerous movies since (such as the other "Dead" movies, Aliens, Ghosts from Mars, and Dog Soldiers as well as many others), but none have really given the entertainment and substance that this has, with Aliens being the only exception. I cannot speak of the succeeding "Dead" movies as I have not yet seen them.

This film also has substance (however even though most horror movies are predictable, plot less, and clichéd that is what quite often makes them my escapism; but this one is still superior); there is a plot, the story flows well, has structure, and there are no inconsistencies. It's also backed up with a social commentary, I am not saying a good movie needs to send a message, but it adds to the goodness of this film. It's a social comment on the late Vietnam War era; the establishment don't know what to do and humans are being made into killers (quite literally). And even if you disregard the social-commentary, it still makes good entertainment.

The movie achieves everything above, without the use of stunts and over the top special effects.

All in all, the result is a good movie, good characters, structure, and substance. One of the best horror movies ever. It has earned itself a 9/10. Romero and Russo do many proud, judging from the votes.

This movie works on many levels, with it's production and cast, resulting in a darn good movie.

I saw this movie with a friend and acquaintance in the city. Before hand we had dinner in a kebab fast food store. It was a dark night, patrons came and went, stayed when we left etc. The view from the store was of the cinema, video game arcades, and other fast food stores, various city inhabitants, and various traffic (including annoying car life) It reminded me of a uni course I'd done, and look back on fondly.

It was quite appropriate, considering this movie. It is a brilliant urban thriller. Tom Cruise plays Vincent with calm, cool, and coldness, and he does it well. He's also very convincing with grey hair. Jamie Foxx plays Max, from mild mannered, to fearful, to resorting to basic survival instinct, convincingly. Both their performances are good and Foxx has certainly earned, and is deserving of, his starring role in "Ray" in my view.

The camera work is good, and the style is effective,getting up close with the events in the cab. And the feel of urbania is good, with the camera work, and surroundings, the lights, buildings, and traffic. The storyline flows well (nothing too complicated), and coupled with the camera, and the feel for urbania and cast. It is a-political, and fun in the thriller and visual treat sense. The emphasis is not on the violence but on the thrills, "what happens next?" is the question. This movie certainly had me engaged, I didn't realise how long it went for, and for that matter I didn't really care, I loved every minute of it. It actually made me think of my uni course. Urbania is unpredictable and will throw all sorts at you can be your best friend and give you wealth and fun, or it can be an enemy and give you danger. I would't say this is a social commentary on city life, but it certainly thrust me into the midst of urbania's personality. I guess all urban inhabitants are warriors, we put up with a lot with the aim of achieving and maintaining, whatever it is we're looking for.

This is $11 and about two hours well spent, and a nine out of ten well earned. City life, throw what you have to offer at me, I like it. And I love this movie.

This a good movie because it is easy to understand, has sympathetic, likable characters, the actors play their parts well and it's good in nature.

The story is none to complex and flows well, I saw this late on new year's eve and understood it clearly. The cast and all play their parts well. I felt really sorry for Pierce Brosnan, being abandoned, losing his kids, having the system against him and having a huge fight on his hands. Nonetheless he holds his head up high and has a real pally attitude. Frank Kelly (Father Jack from Father Ted) plays a kind hearted grandfather well. In the best character ranks is also Sophie Vavasseur as Evelyn, who steals the show, shes a brave and defiant cookie in the institution and the court.

It's also good in nature with Brosnan's family sticking together, along with the support he receives from Frank Kelly, Julianna Margulies, the lawyers, and pub patrons. It's also good natured with the concept of the sun through the clouds being Frank Kelly looking down from heaven.

It's also good as an expose of over the top and out dated morals being injected into government (generally speaking). Even though Brosnan was dumped by a wife who clearly wasn't interested in staying, he genuinely made an effort to care for the children. But the law ruined everything.

But politics aside it's a simple, pleasant, story, involving strong sympathetic characters, played by a good cast. A 9/10.

The final scene in the court with the third judge repeatedly saying however was a classic.

Speaking from the viewpoint of a reader of the Trojan War myth and a movie goer, this movie is great. In terms of story (and tradition of telling the Trojan War story), characters, special effects, it's a great piece of work. Even it's historical accuracy is good.

I was able to compare this to The Illiad and other narratives, and this movie makes a view significant changes.(Menelaus's death, Paris's survival, Patroclus being a nephew of Achilles, and the war didn't seem to go long) But that didn't bother me in the slightest because the story of the Trojan War has been altered over time since it's inception. Homer was not the first to tell it but merely the first to write it down. Altering the story has been apart of Trojan War tradition, and this movie has kept to it. I think this story is catering to modern tastes, but Homer was catering to the tastes of his time as well. And I don't think he would have a problem with this at all. Like I say, the movie is keeping with tradition.

The basic narrative however remains the same with the elopement of Helen and Paris, the reluctance of Achilles to go, his closeness to Patroclus, the initial Greek victory, the quarrel over Briseis, Paris being a poor fighter, the Trojans repelling of the Greeks, death of Patroclus, Hector's and Achilles dual, Trojan Horse, and Fall of Troy. For that I like it. In the end Trojan war adaptations should just be a good story, and that's what this is. A damn good story. A story that, in this case, is well written, flows well, isn't not boring, quite engaging, and scripting thats solid.

When reading The Illiad I was supportive of the Trojans, and this movie agrees with me, with the Greeks portrayed as warmongering, womanising, bullies. Homer had put a regal spin on the Grreks, but this movie had them as total jerks. Agamemnon, Menelaus the epitome of the attitude. I did not like Ajax in the book, and I was glad to see him die in the movie. Achilles, Patroclus, and Odysseus I didn't mind however. I felt really sorry for Hector having bad luck thrown on him repeatedly, Priam just wanted his city protected and genuinely believed the gods would help him, Andromache wanted her husband to be safe, Paris was pitiful but not unsympathetic, and the Trojans were just protecting their land. sympathetic characters are essential to me, for a good story and this movie delivers.

The special effects were also good. For the armies and battles they were necessary, and complemented an already good story. It was quite a spectacle. The architecture and statues seemed consistent with 1200 BC. The military uniforms were consistent Greeks had their typical regalia, and the Trojans had west Asian suits rather than Greek uniforms in whixh they've been depicted in past efforts. The choreography is good too as seen in the battles.

What's also good is the versatile cast. Eric Bana and Rose Byrne from Autralia, Diane Krueger from Germany (who is also VERY nice looking)Orlando Bloom and Sean Bean from England, Brian Cox from Scotland, Peter O'Toole from Ireland, Brendan Gleeson from Northern Ireland, and Brad Pitt from America. It's good to see the talent the rest of the world has to offer rather than confining it to the Hollywood big names.

My only problem is that they gave little attention to Hecuba (Paris and Hector's mother) as well as Thetis. But otherwise it's damn good.

Interms of story, characters, visuals, and historical accuracy, and (in my case) closeness to the written version, and keeping with Trojan War tradition this movie delivers. It's an epic achievement because the money spent on this has resulted in the above being converted to the big screen, in a visual and audial treat. An 8/10, Wolfgang Petersen, Homer would be pleased, and so am I.

This movie was a let down mainly because of my expectations of how they would interpret history, the narrative, and camera work.

At the theatres I just didn't find the movie engaging. The pace was a mediocre speed. And the final battle scene was just so darn confusing because because both the Sarmatian Knights and the Saxons looked so similar.

While Troy was different to the Illiad the story of the Trojan War had been told long before Homer, different versions have been told over time (before and after Homer) but the basic narrative remains. the legend of King Arthur is like this, with different versions but the same basic plot. Trot stuck to the legend but made some minor alterations (as has always been done). But this was putting the King Arthur legend into historical perspective. And due to my understanding of the legend and history I had expected something different.

From the myth, and documentaries I had often assumed that "King Arthur" was a Celtic warlord, Roman educated, and possibly Christian. I also assumed the "King" would be independent, and based in southern Britain as many of the location in the myth are in or based on locations in southern Britain Salisbury, Tintagel, and Camelot (based on a Roman centre Camulos). I had heard that the knights of the round table would have been minor warlords and chieftains, with Arthur as the leader of an alliance. As for the Roman withdrawal it took place around 410 AD, this has it much better. And I had never imagined that the knights of the round table were in fact Central Asian. I would certainly be interested in what archaeological evidence, and historical records the film makers used. Due to my expectation I found the film a let down.

However I could sit through and watch this at the cinema, the characters were all right (although Clive Owens tough boy attitude annoyed me a bit) and I've seen much worse movies.

The director's cut was better, the extra scenes gave the story a better flow and the final battle scene was more clear (but I guess it helped that I had seen it before).

In the end a disappointment but not the worst film. I wouldn't race out to see it again.

This movie stinks, I didn't think highly of it and still don't. It is a rip off of Saturday Night Fever, only set in the 90s, for starters.

There are so many similarities between the two movies. For example; John Travolta has a lousy homelife, Eminem has a lousy homelife. John Travolta has a bland job, Eminem has a bland job. John Travolta seeks solace in his hobby and only escape, disco, Eminem seeks solace in his hobby and only escape, rapping. John Travolta goes into a contest, Eminem goes into a contest. John Travolta goes around town complaining with his mates, Eminem goes around town complaining with his mates. John Travolta meets a girl, Eminem meets a girl. John Travolta is a womaniser but gets upset when the lady he meets doesn't turn up, Eminem dumps his girlfriend but gets all upset when the new girl he meets is doing someone else. While I haven't seen the ending of either I'm guessing they both win the contests they enter.

There are a couple of differences between the two, SNF is fictional, while 8M has been the subject of debate as to whether is is true, semi-biographical, or fictional. Also, Travolta is actually king of the dance floor, Eminem must rise to the top. Another difference is that I actually like John Travolta; he seems like a nice person, makes a good interview, and he's worked for an Australian airline, yay. Eminem on the other hand I detest, he sings many of his songs with a hateful tone, and (another reason why I dislike this movie) he has a martyr complex numerous km wide, and wears it like a crown.

This movie is filled with Eminem's martyr complex, he's always wandering around with a pained look on his face, and frequently complains. "Your friends don't know me", "We're still living at home with our mums." Please! Whatever your hangup is Eminem get over it. I was glad to see this piece of trash for a movie sent up on Scary Movie 3.

However, One difference is that I could watch this movie longer than I could watch SNF. I reached a point in SNF where I had just had enough and went to bed. For this I was watching this at a friends place up to the end but missed it because I had to leave. It has been on TV but I have missed the ending there as well. So the director must have been doing something right to keep me watching.

Nonetheless, for this movie's unoriginality, protagonist, and annoying martyr complex running through it I give this four out of ten.

Warning some spoilers

Where the Lord of the Rings trilogy taught me that not all big budget movies were plotless and badly acted, this movie taught me that not all independent movies are good. This movie was awful, it's been awhile since I've seen it, but I remember it very well and have been meaning to get this off my chest for some time. Where to begin?

The movie goes nowhere, it's like looking along a piece of string from one end to the other. It just plods along very slowly. There are no build ups, or significant events, nor any climax or resolution. The movie also runs for two hours which is two hours too long. It's like the writers made up the "story" as the film was shot, or they finished the script, dropped it and it scattered everywhere, so then they bundled it back together only it still had pages missing while othere were in the wrong place. The "story" is simply scenes of Kate Hudson having it off with anything in pants, a series of weak and airy fairy conversations, Matthew Modine acting all weird, "debate" on a painting, French cliches and mysonginist conotations.

The characters (played by good actors which are totally wasted in this "movie") lack any emotion, charisma, and strength. Hudson and Watts and their family put up a lame fight for the heirloom painting and Sam Waterson even acts like a total suck towards the family who dumped on his daughter and seek to take a family treasure. Naomi Watts is pregnant and attempts suicide, and all Hudson can do is act like a tart (she even strives to become the mistress of a middle aged, married with children womaniser, who is bound to dump her at any time) while their family don't even want to talk about it. Not very supportive at all.

The movie also goes in for a load of nasty, unfair French bashing. This movie seems to be saying that French men are womanising, arrogant, and have a sense of superiority, while French women accept things as they are. While for all French it seemed to be saying that French are just stupid. It is also mysoginist; on women in general the movie seems to be saying that women are weak or in no control of their sexual urges, while for men it seems to be saying while they are sexually active they are in control of their sexual urges. Even Glenn close a learned writer (whose subject is French women in their 'native habitat') was the mistress of the womaniser at one stage.

Theres also some unbelievable scenes in this such as when Modines character is running against the flow up the Eifel Tower security guards just sit and do nothing until he draws a gun, no one is THAT inept. Also the bag flying over the city was just ridiculous, no bag would fly like a feather especially with a gun in it. And on top of all this the movie is just plain boring, and largely uneventful. Within the first half hour I was thinking of political theory and finding that more entertaining, but I was still able to keep track of the movie, not that there was much to keep track of.

May this movie gather dust and cobwebs in the video store unlucky enough to shelve it. And when it makes cable and free to air t.v, may it fester in the the 1:30 to 4 am time slot. And god help the poor network who airs it as I doubt many will want to see this.

Not a fan of comic books I find that the movie adaptations are very entertaining (with the exception of The Punisher) and rather than be simple beat'em up flicks with no story and little talent, they are in fact quite the opposite, and this movie is no exception. While the concept of the weak rising to be strong is a very common theme, it makes a welcome change to what could have been a plotless action flick.

The characters in this movie are all likeable. They are quite human for movie characters, they are vulnerable and their appearances conceal their realities, Peter Parker may acquire superhuman strength, but is quite lonely, Mary Jane Watson maybe popular and pretty but comes from a broken home, and the Osborns maybe rich but there is little amity between them. They pursue hard to reach targets with Peter pining after Mary Jane, Mary Jane gets a drab start to her acting career, the Osborns try to understand each other but can't take the initiative, while corporate success for Norman Osborn proves elusive. In a movie it's a good thing to have sympathetic protagonists, and this movie delivers.

The actors are all well picked, and play their parts well. Tobey Maguire gives a good, sympathetic performance as Peter Parker, who you jusy feel sorry for, and I was happy to see him pound that Flash. Kirsten Dunst gives a good, sympathetic performance as Mary Jane Watson, and is cute too. Willem Dafoe plays Norman Osborn (who is sympathetic at first but then becomes a total jerk-wad) well, he is also very good as Osborns alter ego the Green Goblin, he's not an overblown villain. James Franco is pretty good as well, as Harry Osborn. Rosemary Harris plays a sweet Aunt May, and J.K.Simmons is amusing as Peter's employer.

The scripting is good as well, it's a solid story that doesn't detract from the narrative. It's well directed by Sam Raimi, with the story moving along at a steady pace (helped along by the good cast) with the special effects and action ,which are impressive to watch, complementing the story rather than the other way around. The movie doesn't forget that it is an action movie, yet balances the visuals and character interractions very well; combined with the scripting it proves to be an engaging flick. It also goes at just the right amount of time at two hours and one minute. There's also some funny moments such as Peter trying to release the web, and Harry's end of the conversation with MJ after the fair. I certainly got my money's worth at the cinema, and I have seen it repeatedly on cable, yet have not got bored of it.

In all it proves to be an entertaining, watchable movie. I would like to give it an eighrt and a a half, but since that's not possible I give it a nine out of ten because I enjoyed it so much. A very good movie. movie

Warning may contain spoilers

Since this didn't make theatres (thank God) every DVD and VHS with this movie on it deserves to be axed, chainsawed, stabbed, nailgunned and everything that Patrick Bateman did to his victims in the movie and book. Whereas the original had originality, humour, sharp wit, and good script writing, great direction and acting talent, this movie lacks all of them. Harron, Turner, Bale, Sevigny, Dafoe and others made a great movie. Of which both the making and finished product was put through the ringer with locations withdrawn at the last minute, shooting having to keep a low profile, and banning attempts. The result was a work of art. But this film undoes all the work of the original.

The acting is wooden, characters are played lamely, and lack any emotion, charisma or personality. Wit is non-existent, and the attempts at humour are so lame that if I were to laugh I would laugh at the patheticness of it all. The music is awful and the voice over (unlike in the true American Psycho) is annoying. And while there seems to be an attempt at sending up campus life and politics, it is not a redeeming factor at all and the writers appear to give up on it after not too long.

It is simply a teen slasher movie that has (for reasons unknown) added the name American Psycho to itself, and brought in the Patrick Bateman angle. It is like this scenario; Artist A does a painting, Artist B does their own painting, but then places scenes and subjects from the work of Artist A. I am not sure how long this sequel was in planning or when it was decided, but thats the situation as I see it. All that differntiates from teen slashers is that we know who is doing the killings, but that was taken out of the "first". So theres no originality there.

What is really bad about this film is that it tells you that Bateman actually did the killings in the true American Psycho. The only person who has the right to say whether Patrick really did commit the murders or not is Ellis. He was the author of the original American Psycho story, therefore only he should decide. I read that Ellis in fact, stated that in the novel, all that actually ever happened was that Bateman might have horrible thoughts of you and draw horrible pictures as well. That the killings didn't really take place was also conveyed (as I saw it) in the original. So don't all we who executed the sequel feel silly now? And even though I have called this a sequel (for ease of writing) I do not recognise it as such. As far as I am concerned we left the world of Bateman in the novel when the final page was turned (even though I never read it properly), and in the film when the end credits began rolling. Until Ellis writes a continuation of American psycho, to me Bateman is alive and kicking.

See only if you're absoloutely desparate or want to write a critical review of a movie. Otherwise avoid at all costs.

Warning, possible spoilers

I didn't have high expectations of this, in fact I never really thought much about it. But when I watched it it was quite good.A pity it went straight to video,as far as I know anyway, it deserved to be on the big screen. Andy Serkis is good at playing a truly evil, detestable, villain. Johnny Lee Miller is good as the widower, Denis, seeking vengeance, and the way in some cases he must become a truly different person from what he was, becoming ruthless, hardened, and a user of others, is well followed. He's a sympathetic character as he goes through all the various trials and tribulations. The other cast are good in their parts as well. I am not a big fan of criminal movies but with this, as well as Lock Stock, I am willing to make an exception. I can't complain about this, and am glad I saw it. A good thriller.I won't spoil the ending but I will say I liked it very much.

Warning may contain spoilers

A boring, essentially special effects driven action movie, that lacks the mysticism and solid scripting of the original. To me it was just a standard sci-fi. The action scenes in this particularly the battle at the Dock and in the Tunnels were so long, and removed from the theme of the original that they were simply dull. What made this different from the second was that there were no moments of incomprehensible dialogue, but continuous action. I am unsure if this was a good thing or a bad thing, however neither were any good.

While special effects are highly present in The Lord of the Rings, they are used where necessary and the triology is not reliant on them, as it is also moved along by the solid story and characters. All three concepts carry the story, with the first merely assisting the other two which are most important. The same could be said for Harry Potter. Any themes that the Matrix tried to convey were lost in the overboard action and special effects, and poor script. So much work was put into the action sequences and effects, it was though they were compensations for lack of story and used to fill in time. Effects are taken for granted these days, and can be boring if there are no descent accompaniments to them. There were so many they were not impressive.

It seemed the basic plot was Neo awaiting his final duel with Smith after Smith had reached the height of his power, and long fights. I was so bored with it all I was sympathetic to the machines hoping that they would drill through the dock. There was so much imagery in this I felt like I was drowning in it.

The ending in the film itself was good, but I didn't come out feeling rewarded. The film was not a good ending to the trilogy. It tried hard, but failed, to impress.

Warning, contains numerous spoilers

I didn't go in with high expectations of this, being made eight years after the original and originally unplanned for sure (these factors are often signs that a sequel will stink, I didn't see the Carrie sequel but all the reviews told me everything I needed to know). I really only went to see this because friends got me to. What made the original good was lacking in this effort, in terms of originality, characters, plot, length, and in terms of good or bad taste.

While the original was just another mismatched pair of cops it didn't have all that tacky street talk, while there was some it wasn't to the annoying extent that it was in say Shaft or Training Day. There was genuine humour and the action was in healthy doses. The length was good at 114 minutes (just under two hours). And there was somewhat a degree of originality with the setting (a change from New York or Los Angeles) and even the villains where not your cliched Hispanic or Homie gangs.

This however loses everything. The characters are just plain unlikeable, with Martin Lawrence continually trying to dominate his sister, and then getting angry at Smith's character for dating her, and then taking his overprotection home and tormenting his daughter's date, I didn't really find that funny. I wanted to smash his characters face in for his attempted dominance (and for the record I am not a downtrodden sibling, I just found his antics so annoying). Will Smiths character has none of the attributes in the last one, he's quick to anger, and has a bad attitude as displayed when he referred to a corpse as a bimbo (which means promiscuous), when for all he knew she could have been an Honours student.

The treatment of corpses in this is in bad taste. The scene in the morgue (which is where Smith insults the corpse) was disgusting, with organs and brains being shown. This made me feel bad in the toes. Sure there was blood and gore in movies such as Saving Private Ryan and From Hell but that's because, SVP and movies like it used gore to show how horrible wars are, and From Hell dealt with themes of the body and medical procedures.

In the original, when Lowrey and Burnette (the main characters) had a spat (often faked) it was quick, and amusing. In this the spats are long, drawn out, deliberate, and just laced with spite mostly on the part of Lawrences character. I felt particularly uncomfortable watching the scene when they were walking through the fences. This is an action-comedy, spite between chararcters is edging into drama territory. Lets keep action comedy, action comedy. The originality is lacking too. In the original, rather than the usual Hispanics, Rastafarians or homies, the villains were locals led by a European. In this the main villian is a Hispanic, and has dealings with the Russian mafia, very cliched these days.

The last half hour is the worst, it is where the movie bcomes too long, just plain ridiculous, and the cliches continue. When Delta Force and that anti-Castro militia came in I thought "You are joking" unfortunately they weren't. Bringing the other two groups in and the fact that Joe Pantoliano's character knew someone from one of them was ludicrous. When Burnetts sister is kidnapped by the token hispanic drug dealer, she's taken to Cuba; Castro is involved in the drug trade and gives protection to drug lords, the token Latin American dictator. This is veering into Swachzenegger, Van Damme, and Segal territory. In the original the characters did not come out of the final fight scene unscathed, the characters were pinned down and only freed thanks to Tea Leoni, Burnett took a bullet to the leg, Lowrey took a hefty punch in the face and was thrown from a moving car and couldn't get up without help, and Ruiz and Sanchez would have been killed if not for the intervention of Lowrey. In this the characters with their militray and para-military allies get through without any trouble, only one member gets a bullet in the shoulder and even some members of the Cuban army are popped off. If they do Bad Boys 3 will they go to the Middle East and fight Saddam Hussein loyalists? How Will Smith could oppose the war in Iraq (for which I will always like him for) and yet star in such cliched material, I will never know.

Then there is the chase through the shanty town which is a complete rip off from the Jackie Chan movie Police Story. Joe Pantoliano played the cliched role of the stressed out superior officer in the original with such genuine humour I didn't mind. In this he tried far too hard in this to pul it off, it seemed too forced. There was nothing to save this movie. There was the freeway chase scene, but thats hardly a redeeming factor. Smith takes up acting in cliched material ending his record of descent movies (that I've seen at least), while Lawrence continues his record of lousy movies, except for the original Bad Boys which is great and Blue Streak which is quite amusing. But otherwise, is pretty bad.

Big lack of originality, Bad taste, Bad characters, Bad movie. Avoid it if you can...like the plague