dunfincin

I think I am writing the first review of this film. I have followed modern music throughout most of my life and whilst I had heard of the group Killing Joke, I knew nothing about them and was not familiar with any of their music. Having seen this film, I am not much better off. I am sure that we have all watched documentaries about pop groups - their formation, successes and failures, the inevitable reliance upon drugs and booze, the lies and deceptions and the final falling out. This film is no different save that the group is still going as far as I know. You get more or less what you would expect with two possible exceptions. Firstly, the members of the group profess an affinity with mysticism and the dark arts generally with many references to metaphysical events which they claim to have experienced and which permeate their music or at least that's what they say and if you could actually hear any of their lyrics, this may well be true. Secondly, the "front man " is a remarkable individual called Jaz Coleman. A very intelligent and talented man but as is so often the case with such people,deeply flawed with self-confessed stays in psychiatric hospitals and narcotic addictions.I was not particularly engaged when watching this film as I found the group members and attendant managers and disgruntled former managers to be by and large the sort of people I would very much wish to avoid.I am sure that if you took any well known past or present rock band and put the members under a microscope, threw in some archive footage and vague reminiscences from people who claim to know or have known them, you would not see very much different than what is portrayed here. I can't see that this film would appeal to anyone other than a die-hard Killing Joke fan and surprisingly there are plenty of them..

I quite enjoyed this film. A fairly novel concept with decent effects,

a coherent and interesting plot and some good acting particularly from Asa Butterfield and I thought also from Carla Gugino an actress I hadn't heard of before. I couldn't escape the feeling however that I was being treated like an idiot to some extent by the director/producers and casting people of whom there seemed to be a considerable number. Asa is aged 20 but a little physically immature and he played the part of a gawky 16 year old very well. His high school girlfriend was played by Britt Robertson who we can be forgiven for thinking must be in the same age group - ie 16/17. The actress is in fact aged 27. Now she is clearly an attractive young woman but 16 she ain't. In one of the final scenes we are treated to the revelation that Asa's father was Nathaniel Shepherd played by Gary Oldman.The mother we already knew was Sarah Elliot played by Janet Montgomery who is in fact 32 years of age but appeared younger in the film maybe a very pretty late twenties allowing for the fact that she held the rank of Lt-Col in the USAF. Gary Oldman, bless him, is currently 59 years old and has obviously,shall we say, enjoyed life to the full.The idea therefore that a very attractive twenty something career officer was having a relationship with and conceiving children by a man who could be mistaken for her grandfather I found a bit hard to swallow. The other problem with the film in my opinion was the failure to explain or in any way allude to the technology being used to ferry people to and from Mars. The Nasa mars mission was recently put forward from 2030 to 2050 due to "technical problems" largely the fact that they have so far failed to invent a form of space travel more sophisticated than liquid-fuelled rockets and I would have been interested to learn from the makers of the film how they predicted this problem would be overcome. Nope,you just keep on firing rockets into the sky.I hope I'm not being too picky but when a film starts not to make any sense,suspension of belief becomes difficult to maintain.

I saw the negative reviews before watching this film and decided that with Gleeson and Fassbender in starring roles, it couldn't be all that bad. Well, it is and then some. In England there are three types of travelling people - the original Rom gypsies (very rare now), Irish travellers who in English are often called "Tinkers" and a third group of basically itinerant criminals called "Pikeys".They travel the highways and byways of merrie England camping illegally on public or private land, terrorising the local population, taking over the nearby pubs and generally causing trouble whilst they carry on with their more traditional pursuits of begging and stealing.Eventually they move on or are moved on leaving piles of rotting garbage (you could clearly see this towards the end of the film) for someone else to clear up. That community is what this film is about.

I cannot think of a less edifying subject for a film.Are we supposed to empathise with this group of nomadic miscreants perhaps seeing something noble in their total disregard for law and order and other peoples wellbeing? Are they the modern hunter-gatherers of society turning their backs on a corrupt system and preferring to live a life free from other people's rules like working for a living and paying taxes? I neither know nor care.A totally misconceived and egotistical dog's breakfast of a film giving the audience nothing for their money.Perhaps the director once bought a sprig of heather from a woman in a straw hat and colourful clothing - " It will bring you luck dearie"- and thought it would be a good idea to make a film about these lovely people.

The accent which gave people a lot of trouble is what we call in England "West Country" - basically the counties of Devon and Cornwall. A broad west country accent is difficult to understand even for the English so I don't know how they would expect the rest of the world to cope with it- utter stupidity. Incidentally Gleeson's accent was authentic most of the time save for the occasional trip back to Dublin but Fassbender absolutely nailed it. You might say that this is what you would expect from an actor with his talents but for a man from Heidelberg it was a truly remarkable feat.

When I started this review I intended to give it a 2 but I have decided to give it 3 because the sun is shining today.

I was very disappointed with this. Atkinson is a brilliant comedy performer but not a serious actor. His performance here was just passable. I wonder how many fine British and dare I say it French actors were passed over to give him this opportunity. I just couldn't take him seriously. However no doubt if Hollywood had made this film it would have starred Owen Wilson or Vince Vaughn so musn't really complain. The direction and production values were very good notwithstanding that the film was shot mostly in Budapest as you could tell when occasionally the camera would pan across a wall trying to evoke early post war Paris but instead showing us posters clearly written in Hungarian. What totally ruined the film for me was the decision to use primarily English actors with a variety of English accents. You would see portrayed a French bar and obviously great lengths had been taken to add a genuine air of authenticity so much so that you could almost smell the stale wine and the aroma of Gauloise cigarettes then someone would come in and order a "sous-citron" with an unmistakable mancunian accent.Very effective what Brecht called "Stimmungsbrechung" - mood breaking.Far better, I think, to have used French-speaking actors possibly with subtitles or at least some form of franglais a la Hercule Poirot. In fact, some of it was so ridiculous that it would only have needed Atkinson to roll his eyes or start mugging to camera and I would have fallen off my chair. I am ready to suspend a modicum of belief for the sake of drama but not my my entire intellect.

I was toying with the idea of downloading this film yesterday and had a quick look at the reviews on this site. I found there were seven reviews, five of them extremely positive with four ratings of 10 and two others deprecating the movie in very clear terms. I don't think I have ever seen this before and whilst the film didn't particularly interest me, I decided to give it a shot. Verdict? It's not that bad, certainly watchable. The acting was good, the storyline and script comprehensible, the atmosphere nicely achieved and the characters believable. There were a number of downsides however. There was some very poor casting with two partnerships (a man and a woman in each case) of law enforcement officers introduced at different times who were so physically alike that It was impossible, for most of the film, to tell them apart so that certain scenes were very confusing. The movie also seemed somehow disjointed and gave the impression that everyone had had a few weeks holiday every now and then during the shoot or possibly they had to do some re-takes much later on. Almost impossible to feel very much for any of the characters who were by and large such flawed human beings you didn't really care what happened to them. I have seen much worse films with ratings of 4 and 5 on this site so why the huge discrepancy between the existing reviews? I strongly suspect that the maximum ratings awarded by some reviewers were given for motives which were, shall we say, other than genuine laudation. As to the less favourable reviews, I'm really not sure. Admittedly the film did not feature any down on their luck actors pretending to be comedians and entertaining us by laughing at their own inane jokes about wanking and farting. Nor were we treated to 25th century Teutonic cyborgs blowing up the scenery and even less of cold-eyed men in pastel suits demonically mowing down innocent civilians with machine guns before going back to their yachts to hand feed their pet crocodiles.Despite all these drawbacks, this is not a bad film. Not one I would probably watch again but reasonable enough if you have nothing better to do for an hour and a half.I have given it a 6 but a more accurate rating would be 5/6 in my opinion. Happy viewing to all!

I watched this film last night having been encouraged by the first 6 or 7 very positive reviews on this site and did not notice the fairly low rating. I read a few more reviews this morning and all became clear. This film is absolutely dire on every level. The acting, direction, music and cinematography were third rate. The casting and costumes were laughable as others have said. If you read the account of the battle between the Israelites and Philistines in Samuel 1, you will see that it is not biblically accurate as some reviewers claim and in historical terms it is little more than a joke. What I simply cannot understand is how some reviewers see this film as in some way extolling the virtues of Christianity and reinforcing their belief in a Christian God. The legend of David and Goliath (it is really no more than that) has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity. David was a Jew and Goliath a believer in Baal (sometimes called Baal-Zebub - get the picture?) and dozens of other gods and most biblical scholars agree that the event itself never took place but it is simply a parable of the triumph of monotheism over polytheism. There is plenty of archaeological evidence to suggest there was a major battle between the Israelites and the Philistines at the end of the ninth century BC as a result of which the Philistine capital Gath was plundered and destroyed.But this happened nearly a thousand years before Jesus was born so where can the connection possibly be? How can David be championing Christian principles a millennium before their originator was supposedly born? What then is this film actually about? Beats me.

At the moment of submitting this first review, this film has a rating of 6.3 which in my view it does not deserve. I was far from convinced by any of it really . The acting was by and large OK from an unknown cast most of whom as you will see don't even have IMDb photos. Direction, camera work, lighting and so on also OK. There is not much to either like or dislike. The word bland comes to mind. The film is about largely Spanish-American schoolkids playing chess. Er, that really is just about it. There is much dialogue between the children and their parents, family members and teachers most of which is in English if it contains a plot point but they would often change to Spanish when it was just general chit-chat: to lend an air of authenticity you see. Now, I can speak Spanish so no problem for me but I can see some viewers becoming a bit frustrated if they are suddenly shut out like that. Why would people whose first language is Spanish be talking to each other in English at home anyway?

I used to be a keen chess player also but I found it difficult to follow what was going on a lot of the time. In the latter part of the film they appear to have reached a very high standard and are being taught complicated strategies- French opening, gambits, Engish defence and so on and you have to be very good to know or even want to know stuff like that. But in his final game the "lead" child actor makes a blunder so clumsy and ignorant that it is impossible to believe. I won't bore you with the details but a raw beginner would have seen it coming. So, if you like harmless almost vacuous films about 12 year olds playing board games then this is definitely the one for you.

I read the reviews here and being a great fan of British gangster films, I was looking forward to watching this.I found it a colossal disappointment. It is NOT entertaining,suspenseful,edifying,moving or in any way interesting.It IS crass,vulgar,boring and repulsive. We see a social class E family living in a rundown Council house pretending that they are in some way serious gangsters with sinister underworld connections. If they derive an income from organised crime,why are they living in a slum? They are generally fat,ugly,unemployable and unappealing people acting like rejects from an Eastenders episode.They try to give the the impression of being physically tough but any US marine,British commando or 2 REP guy could walk through the lot of them in 60 seconds.I have met families like these.They don't work because no one would employ them. They live on the outskirts of society in a miasma of drugs,alcohol,schoolboy violence and general depravity. The only thing that seems to set this lot apart is a deeply morbid pathology.Quite what the director and actors were trying to show us defeats me completely. I'm all for ¨real¨drama but this was like watching psychopathic chimpanzees in a zoo. And no,I didn't like it.

Saw that this film had a very healthy 6.5 rating on IMDb and so sat down to watch it at home with great expectations.This is a very,very bad film and does not deserve a rating anything like the one it has.It has obviously been hyped up by the Director's wife's cousin, the Producer's son's baseball team and the Best Boy's pet spaniel. A plot so convoluted as to be virtually incomprehensible,feeble acting and a script you wouldn't use to wallpaper your toilet await the unsuspecting viewer.This was apparently David Carradine's last film and the poor man must be spinning in his grave to have left this dross as his final legacy to the world or maybe he did it on purpose as his ultimate two-fingered gesture to the rest of us.My advice is that when you read the reviews of this film,you concentrate on the ones with a rating similar to mine and ignore the sycophantic ramblings of the camp followers.I managed about half an hour before I switched it off and darned a pair of socks which was infinitely preferable.

I think this film deserves all the credit it seems to be getting.Well-written, superbly directed and very well acted by all.I was particularly impressed by the three leading actors, Steven Macintosh, Ashley Walters and Andy Serkis who was absolutely terrifying as the psychotic, machete-wielding,ultra violent thug. Set in what is called in the UK a "sink estate" i.e a social housing estate where crime and violence abound, the film accurately depicts the ethos which prevails there.For many people illegal drugs are a way of life, either buying, selling or stealing them and violence within and outside the family is the accepted norm.Police officers are not allowed on these estates on foot and often any response by the police will consist of not less that two patrol cars.I remember that as a naive young lawyer I had to go to one such estate to interview a man who had been involved in a motor accident.When I left his house, my car was surrounded by a group of about twenty youths all carrying bottles, knives and wooden clubs.They thought I might be a "copper" - a policeman.Not a happy memory. So, well done to all involved in making this realistic, gripping and ultimately very sad film.Definitely not for the faint hearted.Don't take your mum.

I think that to be fair to a film and those that made it, you have to consider what they set out to achieve. Obviously low budget with unknown actors and direction you would expect something fairly low-rent but maybe watchable and that is exactly what you get. Interesting but implausible storyline, enthusiastic but sometimes almost hysterical acting, bargain basement special effects and repetitive backgrounds and scenery but all done with a degree of gusto and good humour.Lads (or new boyfriend and girlfriend) night in after the pub sort of thing.I expect that those who took part will move on to bigger and better things in particular the young cast some of whom showed promise and I would look forward to seeing the gorgeous Rachel Petladwala in something more challenging.Or anything really.I agree with the other reviewer that the film to some extent lacked the courage of its convictions but I suspect that they couldn't afford a really good "gore" make up artist and the cast were nervous about being typecast as sex sirens or whatever the male equivalent may be. All in all, it does what it says on the tin and is not in any way pretentious.It couldn't afford to be. As my old Latin teacher used to say "6 out of 10 for effort"

I write this review to save you from making the same mistake as I did.Bored on a Friday night,you download or rent this film.Rating nearly 5 on IMDb and with some positive reviews so should be good for a laugh at least.I guarantee that if you watch this film you may wince,cry,curse,cringe or throw crockery but you will not laugh.It is an absolute stinker.Truly awful. I suppose that if you were a 15 year old boy living on a farm in rural Kentucky and were keen to see lots of slim young girls with bare midriffs (for no apparent reason) then it might serve some mildly pornographic purpose particularly if you were trying to retain those images for later reflection but if you are not within that demographic there is little other merit. Abysmal in almost every respect,it has only one redeeming quality which is why I watched it for almost an hour and that was to catch an occasional glimpse of the beautiful Sarah Lieving.I won't try to itemise its failings in detail; I'll just give you one scene as an example.There is a man and a woman (trying in vain to remember their lines and not look at the camera at the same time) in a room about 3 feet apart having a dreary and irrelevant conversation about something or other.When the camera is on him ,he looks as if he is being lit by a constipated firefly but when the camera switches to her,she seems to be standing under a 200 kilowatt searchlight.And so it goes on. What I don't understand(and perhaps someone with a greater understanding of the workings of Hollywood can enlighten me)is why anyone would make this dross.Surely no one could have expected to make any money out of it? If you are a wannabe working part-time at Walmart and looking for some recognition for your talents,you must realise that any association with films like these is going to flush the vestige of your career down the toilet? It feels to me like a giant Dunning-Kruger proving ground.Better to go upstairs and read your kids some stuff about dinosaurs or fairies;at least you will feel good about yourself.

I was very pleased to see a film about chefs and high end cooking. I worked for a year in a professional kitchen after I left school but not at the Michelin level. The illustrations of what goes on in a big kitchen were very good:the intense rivalry between chefs,chucking plates of food at the walls,cussing,drinking,intense fear of the Michelin inspectors and the high adrenalin all very true and well depicted.However....... The food at the pass was obviously stone cold ; steam fogging up the camera lenses perhaps.Some of the meat looked as if it was very dry and had been cooling in the fridge.The kitchens were far too clean:halfway through a service you are knee deep in crap and there is steam and stink and oil fumes everywhere and the heat is horrendous.These guys looked as if they had just popped in from a country club.Where was the sweat? The current difference of opinion between food cooked "sous vide" and in a frying pan was well done. I didn't like Mr Cooper.Not cheffy and too good-looking.His Hollywood French was clearly not good enough calling for embarrassing dubbing.If I had been casting this film , having read the script, I would have been on my way to Quebec to find a bi-lingual actor - there must have been one such surely? The star of the show was the food;artistic and beautifully presented and appealing.Someone had gone to a great deal of trouble to make it look top drawer and that was greatly appreciated by moi-meme and I am sure by many others.A foot note from me and derived from this film but not strictly attributable to it.We all like our food and occasionally we like to do something special- an important anniversary ,kids 21st or something like that.However food is fuel to live and I have seen fat tourists in the Dordogne stuffing foie gras into their faces at giant tourist prices, in Paris where you could pay 100 dollars US for a starter and cruise ships where you could order a buffalo stuffed with swans for what it would cost an African family to live for a year.In the West you should be able to eat a perfect 3/4 course lunch or dinner, cooked perfectly and in perfect surroundings for a max of 100 dollars US and if you are paying more because of the name of the restaurant or the chef you are being hoodwinked and you should think again.Take one mouthful of a millionaire chef's "Homard aux crevettes" and think of how many that could feed in the starving world.Sorry for rant.

I read a few reviews which admonished me not to discover too much about this "mysterious and compelling" story beforehand so I didn't.I really enjoy good documentary films so I watched it with an open mind and was ready to be compelled and mystified but I wasn't in the least.I found it all too obvious. A dark-haired French-speaking young man pretends to be a missing blond-haired English-speaking American boy and is apparently welcomed by his clearly dysfunctional family with open arms.So what's going to happen? He is discovered to be a fake(duh)and the family fall under suspicion and we eventually discover that one of them was a junkie and killed himself shortly after the boy went missing.Not much mystery or compulsion there. We are told of the mesmerising abilities and evil nature of the bogus heir apparent but he is no more than a failed chancer,more intelligent than he wants to appear but not as bright as he thinks he is.I've met plenty of those.The only surprise I found was how unbelievably thick and incompetent the relevant American officials were.It was like watching a thriller where you work out the entire plot in the first five minutes and then sit there bored stiff as it unfolds exactly thus. I'm sorry to review this film so negatively when many people obviously enjoyed it but if you are looking for mystery and intellectual challenges,you won't find them here in my opinion. A well-crafted but spuriously sensational film.

Just seen this film for the first time.I enjoyed it very much as it progressed but was totally let down by the denouement for the same reasons which have previously been ventilated by other reviewers. I thought the performances of Beckinsale,Farmiga and Alda were superb (never been particularly impressed by Matt Dillon) as were the writing and direction and I was intending to research the actual events upon which the film is based but not now as my interest has dissipated. The ending in my opinion completely ruined the film because it makes no sense whatsoever;there was absolutely no need for the reporter to protect her "source" because she was at all times fully protected by the law in any event.I give it 5 for the acting and direction but I would never watch it again and I certainly wouldn't recommend it to anyone else.Shame.

This is the sort of film I usually enjoy a lot.Intelligent sci-fi,good special effects and a thought-provoking storyline.However after half an hour the whole thing felt decidedly flat and I couldn't work out why.By the end I had completely lost interest.I left it a week and started to watch it again and all became clear;it was the casting. I normally enjoy George Clooney's films but I realised that I wasn't buying into the character he was playing here;there was no character,it was Gorgeous George himself.The debonair man from the coffee ad,the man constantly in the news for one reason or another- "Je suis Jacques" and all that.The man getting married (seemingly for weeks on end) in Venice in the full glare of the world media.In short,I can't take him seriously as an actor anymore.Maybe that's my problem or maybe he has allowed himself to become so over-exposed as George that he can't really be anyone else.Maybe I'm just jealous. The other problem for me was Hugh Laurie.I'm not sure how many people outside the UK will know that Hugh is best(and probably only)known here as a comedy actor in a long-running and very popular TV series called "Blackadder" where he plays a witless aristocratic buffoon.Whenever I see him,I can only think of a very funny scene where he is being repeatedly kicked in the derrière by an irate Duke of Wellington for being late with the tea.I'm sorry,but I can never see him as anything else.I expect that he went to work in the USA because he was hopelessly typecast in the UK, so asking him to play a serious character in an internationally released film is a bit hard to understand.I'm sorry if you think this review is a little too subjective but I have tried to be as objective as I can by giving the film a 6.

I wasn't expecting much from this film having read some reviews, but I really enjoyed it. Scary,jumpy and unpredictable.Some reviewers have criticised the acting of the main actress but I think she did a good job ;not easy to carry an entire movie by yourself and she had beautiful green eyes to boot. Was riveted by this film from the very start which managed to suggest nasty things to come without telling you why,what or from which direction.Good storyline and reasonable script coupled with a few chair arm-gripping moments and what more could you want? It just shows what you can achieve with some level of intelligence,dedication,imagination and skill even if your budget is limited.Producers of mindless Hollywood pap please take note.

Downloaded and watched this last night - in a hurry and couldn't find anything better.Read the IMDb reviews first so had an idea what to expect.I don't mind this sort of film usually - the trick is to lower your expectations and try to meet it on its own level.There will always be something to enjoy - some interesting scenery,amusing dialogue,a very pretty girl,a good bit of action or a story which holds the attention but oh dear what a dog's breakfast. Rotten dialogue,unintelligible plot,primary school nativity play acting,seedy production and direction.I just managed the first half and spent the rest of the evening staring at the wall and enjoying the relief.Cecily Fay is a champion in the Indonesian martial art of Pencak Silat and she was 35 when this film was shot.She "wrote" it as well and obviously it was designed to be a vehicle for her to show off her skills and nothing else (and to be fair there was nothing else so it succeeded on that front and for that reason I gave it a 3) Surely people in the film industry (and presumably there must have been one involved in this debacle) must by now realise that you cannot make a medieval/fantasy/martial art type film with a molecular budget- it is never going to work.This is a film that should never have been made.

I downloaded and watched this film last night having been very encouraged and impressed by the very positive reviews on IMDb.I was puzzled by this today and read more of the reviews which either heaped copious praise on this movie or which sought to challenge the veracity or honesty of many of the reviewers; I fall very firmly into the latter camp. This is not an "impressive","intriguing","thoughtful" or "well-made" film.It is a routine B minus effort with mediocre acting and directing and a confusing and illogical script.It represents what happens when you try to make a film on a restricted budget - inexperienced unknown actors(no offence-we all have to start somewhere)trying to do their best with second-rate material, limited production values and every scene taking place in the same location because there isn't the budget to transport the actors or crew to different venues. Having said all that,the film tries its best and in my opinion is probably just watchable if you are a fan of the genre and there is nothing else going.It certainly isn't worth its current IMDb rating and I agree with several of the reviewers whose olfactory senses detect an unwanted rodent somewhere.

I saw this movie last night and felt I had to review it today.Without doubt one of the worst films I have ever (partly) seen.Not just because,as other reviewers have said,that it is not faithful to its biblical roots or that there is little or no characterisation, it's just plain bad in almost all respects.It was like going back in time 50 or 60 years and watching some bible-based epic with Charlton Heston or Victor Mature - barely watchable now but this dross has the same effect and it hasn't even reached its first birthday.Bad casting (I think the actor who played Ramases is Russian and was a hit-man in Smoking Aces),turgid storyline,acting that would have embarrassed one of my floorboards and meaningless dialogue rather like the lyrics of a Bowie song (he used to write his stuff,cut out the lines into individual strips and mix them all up so they made no sense).

I don't in any way comprehend what was going on in the Director's mind or the idiots who put up millions of dollars to fund this drivel but I am consoled by the fact that they will lose a fortune and that Mr R Scott will one day be having nightmares over it.I like big epic maybe old-fashioned films as a rule and tried to keep an open and tolerant mind having read the very mixed reviews on this site but after thirty minutes I felt that my intellect was being systematically insulted and after an hour I was hurling abuse at the TV screen and switched it off.When I think of the many hundreds of young talented people trying to make a living in the movie industry and the amount of money wasted on this one film,I just despair and I daren't go into my thoughts about the number of starving and sick African children who might have been saved by the donation of one tenth of what it cost to manufacture this gigantic, misguided, self-indulgent ego-trip.

I rather like cheaply made kung fu films but not this cheap which is a great shame because I thought the leading protagonist, (and apparently the film's director) Peng Li was actually rather good. I don't think I've seen him in another film previously which comes as quite a surprise given that he managed to secure funding (about $27) for his own debut film.

I won't go into the story too much save to say that it is a very familiar theme-good-guy beats up bullies, rescues heroine and generally saves the day. I don't know whether Peng Li is really a Shaolin trained monk but he is obviously very good at what he does. In his katas, his kicks and punches are very fast and powerful and I suspect that with properly focused chi he could do a lot of damage and that's what makes the fight scenes so unbelievable. He is punching and kicking people with no obvious martial art skills who are then bouncing off the floor as if they had been hit with a bag of marshmallows when in reality they wouldn't be getting up again for a long time.

I've seen complaints that Peng Li doesn't smile enough or indeed show very much emotion. As a rule, Chinese people don't. Comparisons have been made to Jackie Chan but possibly they don't realise that his slapstick style is just an act for his films. If Peng Li is a Shaolin Monk or if he is pretending to be one then spending three-quarters of your life living in a monastery eating three bowls of rice and fish a day when you're not meditating or fighting with someone, then I wouldn't be smiling much either. I think he plays his part believably.

This is a modern kung fu film with an accomplished leading man and it is such a shame that his skills have been largely wasted in this dire nightmare of a film and I just hope that there is someone out there who will give him another chance.

I remember reading all of the Jules Verne books went I was a young teenager. Mind stretching, suspenseful and an utter delight. These books should be compulsory reading for all youngsters with a brain and some imagination but I suppose these days you would be happy enough to settle for a decent film of any of the books . This is not a decent film, in fact it's awful. A low calibre cast including the facially inert Rock, a nondescript Mexican who mugs his way through the film horribly and the usual teenage romance interest between the leading "actor" and a young girl otherwise completely superfluous to the story line. A wheezing, over acted and almost embarrassing pseudo cameo from Michael Caine and that's about it.(Oh Michael,surely you must have made enough money by now) A lot of CGI of course to cover up the lame acting, schoolboy script and fatuous dialogue. A complete failure on every level. A travesty in fact. I can't imagine any young teenager watching this film and having his or her imagination fired up to the extent that they couldn't wait to read the entire Verne collection which is a great shame.