Colmo2k4

Plenty of cartoon action to keep the kids stimulated, a few Easter eggs for the fans, but a predictable, risk-free story and no jokes. I was in danger of falling asleep.

Jack Black's musical contribution was my personal low point. I've never found Black funny and nothing changed here. Painful stuff.

Production values were high, voice work polished, no expense was spared on the licenced music, but there were no memorable original songs or scores. Given all this, the script could and should have received far more attention.

Comparing it to Pratt's previous major animated franchise, The Lego Movie, a fine example of the genre that worked for all ages, this was something else - joyless and boring.

Gritter than the Arrowverse, which I gave up on for being to repetitive, with some genuinely good episodes. Iain Glen as the sarcastic Bruce Wayne inside Dick's head was fantastic.

However, the season 2 finale was disappointing, particularly the easy deaths of two of the characters.

What a stunning film - the imminent threat of deadly violence tempered with the tragic circumstances that drive people to such desperate actions made for a very human story.

If Hanks is nominated for an Oscar for this, then Barkhad Abdi deserves a nomination too, because their scenes together were electric - never once did Abdi appear the junior party, every bit Hank's equal as two cunning foes trying to outfox one another.

The best lines in the film were perhaps when Phillips beseeched of Muse: "Surely there's something other than fishing and kidnapping people you could do?"

To which Muse replied, sombrely: "In America, maybe".

It's a must see, the best film I've seen this year.

...says Mark Wahlberg to his class in his role as the world's worst science teacher. If I ever heard a science teacher say that to a class, I'd feel duty-bound as someone trained in science to smack him in the chops.

I'll bet people in history have said the same thing about small pox, the Bubonic plague and Krakatoa - it didn't make it true, did it? M. Night's comically poor grasp of how science actually works is highlighted when Wahlberg's character, in a moment of high pressure, recites a version of the scientific method to himself to figure out a problem I'd sussed at least 30 minutes before - hint: if the experts on TV say there is a wind-borne toxin killing progressively smaller populations of humans, you better believe I'll be running far, far away from anyone else and sealing myself into an air-tight place to wait it out. There are other moments of unintentional comedy, too - the 'out-running the wind' scene comes to mind.

I have seen a review on-line which 'outs' The Happening as intelligent design propaganda - it had not occurred to me as I grumbled about it afterwards, but it certainly fits the thinking of this anti-evolution pseudo-science.

For the reason's above, the film lost me early on (and from the audience reactions, most of the other cinema-goers too, most of whom were students), and never threatened to win me back. There are some good moments - the building site scene sticks in mind, but with characters acting so stupidly and unnaturally, I couldn't empathise.

It's a shame, because I actually like Lady in the Water - Paul Giamatti had a large part to play for his wonderful performance; Mark Wahlberg (I still remember with pain his efforts as leading man in Planet of the Apes) and co. remained laboured and wooden throughout, and with a script like this, it would have been beyond the gifts of far more talented actors to make anything of it.

I'll freely admit my girlfriend and I have quite different tastes, but we usually both recognise really great films when we see them. This meeting of minds, alas, has not happened for the much-vaunted classic 'Gone with the Wind' - she loves the costumes and Vivien Leigh; I loathe the slave-era nostalgia, weak script, hammy acting, overlong show-time (and I'm a Peter Jackson fan) and above all, Vivien Leigh. Only Clark Gable gives a creditable performance as the charming rogue, Rhett Butler.

On the first viewing, the film lost me early on with the depiction of cheerful, singing slaves returning from a day in the fields; it continued to elude me as Scarlett O'Hara, initially portrayed vividly as a spoiled, shrill, ego-centric rich girl, proceeded through the film to become...well...a spoiled, shrill, ego-centric rich woman. If I ever hear her breathily begin a sentence with "Oh, Rhett!" one more time, I think I may scream.

For sure the most overrated film in the IMDb top #250 I have seen, more so than Citizen Kane or Dr. Strangelove, both of which have at least some merit beyond the production values.

The principle problem with this film happened early in the film. When the kidnapped kids demand an explanation of the disaffected former teacher why they are there, he explains "they passed a law...Battle Royale!" as if that could perfectly explain why a struggling government would attempt to curb the excesses of their adolescents by pitting them violently against one another in an elaborate game with no audience, resulting in one remaining hardened and traumatised individual. How this would actually improve society escapes me, aside from trimming the numbers slightly; human history is littered with far more effective examples of how to cull a population. Frankly, there are less flimsy premises propping up the average adult movie.

From then on, I spent more time cracking jokes about the absurd premise than getting sucked in by the fear and tension of the participants, which is sad, because it could have been different. As others have mentioned, the film suffered for lacking an actual point to all the violence - nobody actually gained from it.

I'm not sure why anyone would watch this - to watch graphic violence, to be grossed out by the moronic mutants, or laugh as the armed male protagonists turn tail and run when presented with a clear opportunity for a killing blow on those that have terrorised them? One minute, the boy is running away from an unarmed mutant, shooting blindly behind him, the next he has the awareness to set a booby-trap for the same mutant - and when it blows, he laughs, having witnessed his mother's heart being eaten moments before? There's no dark humour, and it's difficult to care for most of the protagonists, apart from the young mother, who gets killed anyway. Awful.

I watched this film recently with no expectations or prior knowledge, and had to finish it in a couple of sittings. At times, I just gave up on it, paused it, watched something more interesting, then went back to it when nothing else was on.

The first thing I noticed about this film, besides the worryingly laughless first few minutes, was that I had seen many of the crew on the excruciatingly funny '40 Year Old Virgin'.

Then the differences because obvious; 'Anchorman''s characters weren't realistic, being mere caricatures, and the jokes were blatant and stupid. The fact that they seemed to be obviously so made me think the real joke would come later, but alas, no, they didn't. Brick's introductory scene first worried me (I got the feeling it was intended to be a laugh-out-loud moment, with the exception that I didn't even smile), but the scene with the jazz flute performance was when the alarm bells really went off (and signalled my first break), as it got sillier and sillier.

By comparison, '40 Year Old Virgin' took a simple premise, and created believable characters that drew sympathy from the viewers, which made their predicaments all the funnier.

Perhaps this film works best for a US audience, which recalls newscasting from the 70's, and perceives the satire within. For this audience of one, me, it was a total waste of time.

It gets 2 because I HAVE seen worse. Not by much, mind you...

I fondly recall seeing this film at the cinema (I haven't seen it since, but then I don't want to). I have on occasion walked out on films that left me cold. Happily, I was enjoying this train-crash of a movie so much I stayed to the end. It was so bad, that it entertained me. I even loved the way they optimistically ended the film with a suggestion of a sequel.

It must safely be Travolta's worst ever performance. I could go on, but my fellow commentators have covered the bad points (realistically, are there any good ones?).

All I will say is, if I see a really poor movie, and want to rate it here on IMDb, I always think 'just how much better was it than Battlefield Earth?'. There surely can't be worse.

This movie was the first of the new trilogy, and expectations were running high. I was fortunate to see it on the first night of general release in the UK; it was a colourful affair, with people brandishing lightsabres, donned in capes and wearing Danish pastries on their heads! After half an hour of trailers, the film finally rolled...and it was astonishingly, well, average.

The acting and script stank to high heaven, a number of characters were down-right annoying (J.J. Binks, Anakin), and the pace of the film was all a bit slow - it was apparent that George Lucas had become overwhelmed by the special effects, and was reluctant to chop out scenes to keep things cracking along. The original trilogy was not directed by Lucas (he directed only the first movie), and rightly so; his personal involvement with the project got in the way of his directorial duties, which really should have been given to a more able person. Lucas is a fine producer and creator, but his directorial career is patchy.

I saw the film a number of times that summer (I was bored and had a pass to the cinema), and it did improve with each viewing, but it fails my DVD test, which is, would I pay money, even at budget price, to have this on DVD? Answer: No.