Reviews

I found this film to be very average. I laughed a few times, but at the end of the day, this is by no means a groundbreaker. There is nothing special about it.

It seems to be the case that all you have to do to bring a comedy out nowadays is swear a lot, and show the odd bit of nudity or gross-out humour.

I find it quite a shame that films like this reach such a large audience, when to be honest, they deserve nothing but a bargain bin life.

Seth Rogen can be relatively funny, but he's starting to play more or less the same character in every film - the down-on-his-luck, angry-with-life caner with no chance of greater success. In this film, however, he grains on me more than he has before. I'm beginning to lose any appeal I once had for him.

My brother has this film in his top ten. Most people I spoke to about this film had it in their top tens. IMDb, at the time, had it as the third greatest film on the website with a score of 9.1. Naturally, I was impressed by this, so I did what I haven't done in years, and actually went to the cinema.

When I left, my wife and I agreed with one another that although the film was original and thought-provoking, it was by no means the film of the decade, or even in our top twenty.

Now comes the point where people tell me that I didn't "get" the film. Don't worry - I got every single thing about it, but here is where the problem lies, for me, at least: When I pay eight pounds for myself, eight pounds for my wife, and a whole lot more for food, drinks and fuel money to get there, I like being entertained. In this case, I wasn't. It was like I had spent all that money, only to be handed a thousand-piece jigsaw and told I had what seemed like four hours to figure it out.

Ellen Page didn't even get her knockers out once, too. I was gutted.

I don't have a million things to say about this movie. Suffice it to say, I enjoyed it, and would watch it again.

The special effects are decent, as is the acting of the wholly unknown talent on display.

The film is short enough not to become boring - it keeps your attention, whilst at the same time thrilling and scaring you. The editing is very different, as it appears to have been filmed on a camcorder, giving the whole film a tint of realism, allowing the audience to suspend its disbelief just that little bit more.

Overall, if you hate shaky cameras, don't watch it. Out of all the monster movies that have ever been created though, this one is pretty good.

Okay, so it's been a while since Guy Ritchie made Revolver, which really was a poor film on many levels. So, one would have thought Ritchie would have taken the feedback received for that film, and channelled the criticism into making something that might equal, if not top Lock Stock, or Snatch. What he has come up with is something that offers very little humour matched by a convoluted storyline, with weak characters.

This monumental failure can best be characterised by Ritchie's choice of Tom Wilkinson as the head London gangster. In the past, when Ritchie watchers have been treated by the likes of Lenny McLean and Alan Ford, Wilkinson pales in comparison, due to his inability to master the cockney accent, and the overall weakness given to his character from the writing. The overall feeling in Lock Stock and Snatch was that the bad guys had the power, and were scary, whereas RockNRolla displays that the bad guys are pussies, and can be messed about with little consequence.

Some performances in this film help bring it up slightly - Mark Strong and Toby Kebbell are both brilliant in their own way, and fit their characters uncannily, saving the casting director any further blushes.

The storyline, as would be expected in most Ritchie gangster films, is complicated, with the difference this time being that it was unnecessarily complicated. Snatch and Lock, Stock needed certain characters and particular situations to act as catalysts for the next section of the film to take place. It seems that with RockNRolla, most of it was added to make the ensemble cast appear larger than it needed to be.

The worst thing about this film, though, is the severe lack of any humour at all. When compared with the biting scripts of his previous work, Ritchie can only be criticised for his dearth of imagination. He seems to have lost his spark for creative and witty dialogue contained in humorous situations.

Overall, I probably will not watch this film again, for a very long time. It's disappointments heavily outweigh its plus points. Whilst it is shot in a creative way, and the script, characters and storyline smack of Ritchie-isms, I could not help but get the impression it was Ritchie mimicking himself, rather than coming up with another brilliant film. He appears to have forgotten what made him great in the first place, and has taken a formula, added nothing, and has expected people to come flocking back - a big mistake.

Compared to films of today, Brief Encounter is incredibly old-fashioned in its subject matter, and its entire presentation.

The idea of committing adultery with a "spiffingly charming man" is one that is relevant today, as it happens more often than it used to, however, the taboo nature of the subject matter at the time the film was released creates a guilt-laden tension that draws the audience in, and keeps them involved the the pair's little secret.

One issue with the film, that made it laughable for a person from the 21st century watching this film was howincrediblyfasteverybodyseemedtotalk. It was as though, the director was running out of film, so they had to fit everything into a scene as quickly as possible. This is how people used to talk back then, or rather, how they used to act on screen.

Trevor Howard is brilliant as the charming, conscientious, good-willed Doctor. The entire cast does a decent job of keeping the audience interested in the film, but I couldn't help thinking how attitudes have changed somewhat since the film's release, and I kept thinking what it would have been like to watch the film with someone from 1945 to gauge their reaction. Maybe they would have stormed out of the screening in disgust at the notion of married couples having affairs with other people.

Brief Encounter is regarded as a classic, and who knows - maybe it was. But times change and so too do attitudes. This is a decent film, with often laughable dialogue, but it does not grip today's audience like it would have gripped the audiences of the forties. All it relies on now are its basic storyline contained within the social boundaries of its time, and half-decent acting, interrupted only by the fast-talking delivery of the cast.

What we've got here is a programme trying its best to fit the framework for what is popularly known today as the "quizcom" - a quiz with a comedic element forming the backbone of the programme.

Argumental, a Dave exclusive, is not shown on analogue terrestrial television, simply because it is nowhere near as good as every other quizcom out there. "Have I Got News For You," "Mock The Week," "Never Mind The Buzzcocks," et al contain more humour in their first two minutes than Argumental contains along the course of an entire show.

There are two reasons for this - one being the nature of the show, and how arguing for something you might not necessarily believe leaves you with a dearth of ideas. The main reason why Argumental fails dramatically to hit the mark, is the substandard comedians desperate to ply their trade, and prove that they are not, by any means, "C-list" comedians. In doing so, however, they prove more than any stand-up ever could, that they are nothing but "C-list" jokers, bereft of ideas, lacking the necessary charms required to drive a show and its audience on for the duration of an entire series.

From the mid-nineties onwards, EA have annually produced their own take on the beautiful game, starting off in 1994 with FIFA International Soccer, then obtaining licences for clubs and players, and continuing the FIFA series year-on-year.

2001 saw a genuine threat to EA's FIFA dominance with the arrival of the most complete football simulation to date - Konami's Pro Evolution Soccer - a triumph in gaming terms, only defeated by Konami's reluctance to pay FIFA for the club and player licences. Gamers made their decision, and Konami successfully began to wrestle ground and fans from the once seemingly impregnable EA.

The biggest reason stated by converters to Konami's way of playing, was the realistic approach to matches, with gamers having become fed up of the tedious nature of the 15-13 final scores in the FIFA series. Gamers sacrificed real clubs, real kits and real players, not-to-mention decent commentary, for superb gameplay, realistic ball skils, and challenging finishing.

It was time for EA to rethink their product. Konami had laid down the gauntlet, openly challenging, and indeed, threatening EA's dominance.

Since 2001, EA has been gradually changing the way the FIFA series works, aiming to replicate many of the positive factors inherrent in the Pro Evo series. At the same time, Konami have managed to improve their Pro Evo series year-on-year, with no drastic changes being made to a programme that already works.

So, we come to FIFA09, and once again, EA has improved from last year's offering (the aptly named FIFA08). Controls are slicker than ever before, and the overall enjoyment experienced whilst playing the game has gone up.

Being a pro has never been so much fun, as the gamer can play as one player in a team, and can take this scenario online, playing with up to twenty-one other players.

The commentary in-game is nothing short of astounding, with the commentators saying new phrases all the time, even after countless matches - a weakness all too evident, even in the most recent Pro Evo title.

Graphics are the best they have ever been, but that is a must, in today's fast-moving technology-driven world, where the look means everything.

Despite all the improvements and terrific aspects of FIFA09, there are quite a few drawbacks.

First of all, despite the improvements made to the gameplay, FIFA09 remains behind Pro Evo in the grand scheme of things. Gameplay is edgy, compared to Pro Evo, and the scorelines can still become ridiculous, if the gamer opts for a longer match.

Secondly, the menus are confusing and unnecessary. Gamers need menus to be concise, simple, and user friendly, because no one wants to be in a menu forever. The menu in FIFA09 can best be described as non-user-friendly.

Thirdly, the waiting time for online matches to begin is too long, meaning half the time of the gamer is taken up waiting in a menu. If one person out of the twenty-two has not selected his side or player, twenty-one other people have to wait until the timer runs out. It is one of the most frustrating things for a gamer to face, and is completely unnecessary.

Overall, FIFA09 breaks new ground from a FIFA perspective. The music in the game is youth-oriented, but sounds rather good. The graphics are terrific, and being able to play as your own club, using your own real-life players is a nice feeling. However, despite Pro Evo's failings from a licencing, music and commentary perspective, the main reason people play it (ie the gameplay) keeps Konami's take on football ahead of EA's current offering - the gap is getting smaller, but Pro Evo is still on top.

Russell Crowe is a very good actor, and Christian Bale is probably my favourite actor overall. Yet, I still found myself surprised at how good this film was, compared to my expectations before I watched it.

The storyline is rather simple and straightforward - get Russell Crowe onto the train to Yuma for 15:10. Fair enough. But the journey undertaken, and the characters on the journey really make this film what it is. It is exciting, thrilling, entertaining and at times, rather moving.

Overall, this is a very good film, and one of the best Westerns I have ever seen. Bale and Crowe light up the screen with A-star quality throughout, as we are taught that some bad people aren't all that bad.

I bought this film, knowing that Shane Meadows had made This Is England and Dead Man's Shoes, and knowing that Paddy Considine was electric in everything in which I've seen him.

I cannot say that I was disappointed in this film. It is not as powerful as This Is England, nor is it as funny, nor as gripping as Dead Man's Shoes. However, in saying that, it is a decent film, with some rather good performances from the entire cast. Not much happens in this film, but then again, it is more about the characters than the situations they face.

It is a decent couple of hours' worth of entertainment. The film is not too heavy, and not to light, and well worth a look in. Once again, Considine draws the audience into this character, and adds a sympathetic, childish, innocence whilst maintaining an air of intimidation throughout. He really is a brilliant actor.

Not Meadows' best work, but his portfolio gets better by the year.

I came downstairs one evening, when my mum and dad had gone to bed. My dad was recording something on Channel 4. I checked it out on Teletext, and it seemed appealing - a Roman epic from 1979 about an emperor who goes mad with power. I thought, "why not?" I was certainly not prepared for what I ended up seeing.

I get the impression Peter O'Toole and John Gielgud thought what I thought - that this was going to be a Roman epic and not a porn film. Oh, well. I enjoyed it. The version I first saw was three hours long and had historic scenes interspersed with almost hardcore pornography.

Obviously, the sex scenes turned me on, and watching this film felt like an extremely guilty pleasure, but to be honest, I really enjoyed the other scenes too. The film as a whole seemed scattered and not professionally edited, but it had a charm all of its own. I began to feel compassion for Caligula, despite his faults heavily outweighing his strengths.

One thing that deserves a special mention is one of the most beautiful soundtracks ever. The main theme is one that provides the essential backdrop to the film, and in this case it paints Caligula as a tragic hero, defeated by his own madness, giving a sympathetic feel, overall.

By the end of the film, I felt as though I had been on an epic journey, and I didn't feel shortchanged. It was full of bizarre sex, bizarre violence, and bizarre decisions - phallic symbols aplenty and sexual deviance accompanied by a king mad with power.

It's well worth watching, because there is nothing out there like this film. It's a hardcore porno, with A-class actors. Something that will probably never occur again in our lifetime.

Considering the films that were out at the time, this one in particular runs at a faster pace.

The audience is thrust into the mind of the main character, making his own discoveries relevant to anyone watching the film, as answers to questions merely raise more questions that need to be answered. The overall feel of the piece is that something is not quite right. As the story unfolds, the audience, and the main character are slowly given the pieces to a puzzle that ends with everyone knowing exactly what is going on.

It is a film-noir mystery, professionally done, with exceptional performances from legends of cinema.

Still worth watching, even today. Way ahead of its time when it came out, making it an entertaining spectacle, and a joy to behold.

Well, let's face it - this was never going to be a classic. However, there are sequels that are not as good as the previous offering, and then there are God-awful, art-less, money-making piles of turd...very much like Rush Hour 3.

As an audience, we've more or less had enough of Chris Tucker by the end of Rush Hour 2, but take a look at his CV, and you'll see that the poor guy couldn't get any work after the second movie, so along came Jackie Chan to help his mate out, allowing him to reprise his role as quite possibly the most annoying man on the planet.

Brett Ratner too has effectively directed his own demise, with a distinct lack of vision, and what can only be described as sheer contempt for his audience.

The film is set in France, yet French people speak English to one another, like it's an everyday occurrence, using Jewish insults like, "schmuck," to enhance the Gallic feel of the overall piece. As well as this, Jackie talks to his own brother in English throughout the film. I think it's terrific that the English language has reached every corner of the planet, and has made foreigners talk to one another without using their mother tongues.

What would a film set in France be without the predictable plot settings of a burlesque club, or the Eiffel Tower? What would France be without a rude taxi driver who speaks perfect English, using slang as though he'd lived in America all his life? As for the fighting...was there any fighting? I've seen more kung-fu in a courtroom drama. There is a fight at the end, somewhere, with more cuts in it than a Michael Bay film, inadvertently confirming the common belief amongst Jackie Chan fans that the superstar was past it long ago.

"Let's end the film on the Eiffel Tower..." was the cry of the writer (well, if you can call him a writer). I've written better scripts sitting on the toilet. The final showcase merely stated the case for never making another Rush Hour film ever again...or giving Chris Tucker any more money.

Overall, this film is a highly predictable cash-in, with no genuine taste of France anywhere in sight. The script is the worst I've seen in a long time, the kung-fu is almost non-existent, and the over-riding message is that we have been robbed for the sake of the almighty buck. A truly awful film, lacking in every good reason why cinema was created, without substance, that created a genuine feeling of nausea deep within my soul.

Chris Tucker is fat too.

As a massive fan of Chan, I was anxious about seeing this, because I know that Jet Li's films are shot in a completely different style to Jackie's. On the whole this film is one that should please fans of both superstars, but it is by no means a classic martial arts film. The wirework and CGI testify to that.

There are many functions in this film that have been implemented to draw as many people to the cinema as possible. For example, how do you get the film to be in English? You get an American actor to play the main role. How do you get him to learn kung-fu? You use a montage that shows him training with two masters. How do you get girls to come along to the screening? You have a ninja woman, who acts tough (good for the feminists), but who essentially becomes the love interest (good for the romanticists). How do you get kids interested? Have time travel, butt-kicking, and bullying feature along the course of the film.

Normal fans of the cinema will find the fighting to be terrific and entertaining. As a massive fan of Chan and of kung-fu cinema as a whole, I have to say that the fighting is okay, but relies far too much on wirework and magic to satisfy my own tastes. Kids will find it fun, however.

Overall, nothing new is offered in this film, other than the chance to see two supposed legends of the silver screen fight and eventually ally with one another to take on a pantomime villain. Everything is predictable, and nothing is groundbreaking, but it's worth watching - especially with the family.

I absolutely adore this film. It's clever, shocking, funny, violent, educational and entertaining.

The entire cast play their parts brilliantly, from the spine-tingling Tommy, to the smooth, under-control Jimmy.

The film catches the zeitgeist in an exceptional manner, and shows both sides of the coin when you're a gangster - the perks and the ugly side.

Scorcese's use of comedy, mixed with horrific moments brings the film into a different light, as it is not just about being dangerous and deadly, but there are also humorous elements added to the mix as well.

Overall, the film shows that loyalty has its benefits, but in the end, the friend who screws the other over first will be the one that gets away with everything.

I had to watch this movie for my film class. I walked out. It bored me to tears, and I simply was not interested in anything it had to say, mostly because of the tediously slow pace to it. I had been told about the terrific technical achievement and all that, but it still bored me stiff.

My friend lent it to me a year later, and I got a bit further before turning it off again, having been bored to tears once again.

A couple of years ago, I saw it on sale for three pounds. I bought it, thinking I should give it another try, and I am so glad I did.

I went into it remembering that they started filming it in 1965, and that it was released in 1968 - before man had landed on the moon. This changed my whole perception of the film.

Firstly, it is a Kubrick film. He was a perfectionist. Nothing was in the mise-en-scene that should not have been. It has the feel of perfection, with symmetry and precise actions being commonplace.

Secondly, the technical achievements of this film, and the never-before-scene imagery still stand up today as astonishing, so how they were perceived back in the sixties must have been something to behold.

The part of the film I had never seen before (The Jupiter Mission) was the part that impressed me the most though. The Jupiter Mission both impressed and scared me. HAL is one of the most frightening creations I have ever seen in cinema.

Overall, this film still looks impressive, even today. The only criticism I have for this film is the slow nature of some of the shots. I imagine this was done for two reasons - the first being to showcase the technological achievement in film-making that Kubrick had managed - the second being Kubrick's message that space is both frightening and mundane at the same time.

Of all the Kubrick films I have seen, this is by far the funniest, although it was never the initial intention of the director to make it so, the preposterous nature of events contained within the script led it to be altered to a dark comedy after work had begun.

In saying this, however, the film is not an out-and-out comedy. The subject matter would not allow it to be so. If anything, it is a very dark comedy.

The events may be serious, but the characters who create the tensions and events vary in hilarity. Peter Sellers plays three of the characters exceptionally well. His comic timing and ability to ad lib help create a bizarre atmosphere and ultimately a classic film, devoid of too much seriousness.

This is not in any way Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece, but it is definitely a memorable piece, with memorable performances and a unique slant on the events leading to nuclear warfare.

Tony Jaa is back with a bang, as the baby-faced yet deadly Muay Thai master. This time, he plays a young man who travels to Sydney in order to find two of his father's elephants who were stolen by a criminal organisation with less than favourable intentions.

The result is a revenge movie of gargantuan proportions. With this film, Jaa has taken the success of Ong-Bak and upped the ante, creating more havoc, fighting more bad guys and breaking more limbs as he tears his way through Sydney's underworld in search of his pachyderm friends.

A number of scenes in this film stand out. Jaa fights a group of gigantic men, akin to Zangief of Street Fighter fame. He also fights against a Capoeira specialist with the moves and direct look of Eddie Gordo from Tekken. However, the scene that stands out above all others in this film, is one that literally takes the breath away. Jaa fights his way up three floors of a pagoda-like structure, fighting countless enemies, throwing them off things, breaking objects onto their heads, and breaking their arms. This may seem like average fight-movie thoroughfare, but when you consider the fact that the whole thing was done in one take, it should do nothing but impress. Watching it, as already mentioned, takes the breath away, and paints Tony Jaa as the legend he surely deserves to be.

Overall, this is a terrific film. More fights, more falls, more carnage. A terrific piece of cinema, with something for everyone. Jaa really is here to stay, and aren't we just glad he came.

Like most films based on a true story, I expected this film to be slow-paced, and I was not surprised in any way.

Whilst the overall feeling of the piece is one of loneliness, I got the impression that the main character could and should have gone back home in the end. He stayed out there too long, in my opinion.

It was wonderful seeing all the people he met, and seeing how he affected their lives, and how, indeed, they affected his. But he didn't seem to learn anything from the people he met, apart from various trades and skills. If he'd only stopped to listen to them properly, he might have been happier than he ended up.

Enough about the character himself, though. The music to this film is terrific. Eddie Vedder, of Pearl Jam, wrote all the music, and did a sterling job, as usual.

The ensemble cast is very good, and are directed well by Sean Penn.

This film really showcases the natural beauty of some parts of America, and indeed, the beauty of some of its people.

Overall, this film is sad, beautiful, yet boring. It drags on a bit, and because the subject matter hardly changes (ie a lonely man travelling up and down the country, meeting people) it is very samey. It's worth watching, but do not expect to take any important messages away having watched it, other than the importance of family and friends.

I'm a kung-fu fan. I adore Hong Kong cinema. I have about sixty Jackie Chan films. In the last ten years, however, I have become completely disillusioned with Jackie Chan's efforts. Films like The Medallion and The Tuxedo have been close to appalling. The reason for these pitiful films can only be attributed to Chan's aging body, and his once minimalistic use of wires and CGI have now become his mainstay.

Then, my best friend, lent me Ong-Bak. He told me to watch it. He said it was good. He was wrong...it was better than good. It's a liability to Chan's dominance.

I was skeptical about watching a Thai film, as opposed to a Hong Kong film, because my own preconceptions led me to think Thai cinema was extremely poor by comparison. How wrong I was.

The action in this film is incredible. There is no wirework. There is no CGI. At a time where it would have been easy to use wires or computerised stunts, the makers of this film have stuck to their guns and said, "we can make greatness on our own." Kudos goes to them for making this decision, and they deserve a big pat on the back for pulling it off too.

The undoubted start of this film is Tony Jaa. He is a truly talented martial artist, with the skills of a master, and the face of a leading man. He is a superstar who really has made a name for himself with this film. Some of the moves he pulls off in this film defy belief in much the same way Jackie Chan used to.

Overall, the stunts, fighting and storyline are enough to keep anyone hooked - not just fight fans. The makers have announced that Thai cinema has something to offer, and Tony Jaa has announced that there is a new king of film fighters, and he is it.

I was beginning to lose faith in humanity. Many of the films I had seen in recent times were so badly conceived that I was beginning to lose my passion for film.

I had heard about Nuovo Cinema Paradiso, because it was on people's favourite movie lists, and was a top IMDb film. When I saw it on sale, I bought it, and that's when it all happened. I fell in love with cinema again.

I'm not going to go into the details of the many characters and situations in this film. Suffice it to say, it is one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen. I have the largest film collection of anyone I know, and this film is without a doubt in my top ten. It is full of love, nostalgia and beauty.

Both versions of this film are great, but angle the overall piece in different ways. The extended version (director's cut) concentrates a lot on the aftermath of the love story, and is essential viewing for anyone who loves this film. You can easily fall in love with this film watching the shortened version only, however.

Overall, I am back in love with cinema, and this incredible film is the one and only reason for this. The word "masterpiece" was created for this movie.

What we've got here is a martial arts action flick advertised as yet another Tony Jaa triumph, with very little screen time for Tony Jaa. Once again, he appears on the front and back of the film's cover, and his name is splattered in every available space, but he's hardly in it. Saying that, however, it's a much better film that Spirited Warrior, which was a complete travesty and an insult to Tony Jaa fans everywhere.

The best thing about this film is not the action, nor the storyline, but rather the English language dubbing. Never before have so many laughs been generated by the tediously poor voice-acting of no-name nobodies desperate to release this trash and pass it off as a Tony Jaa movie on the back of the successes of Ong Bak and Warrior King. I don't think I've laughed so much at the dubbing of any Asian films, and I do have a lot of them. This beats the lot in crapness of voice-acting, and is worth watching for that alone. It's as though the people doing the dubbing realised it was a poor film, and wanted to lighten the mood with their hilarious interpretations. One big butch character near the beginning says the word "exterminated" and says it like Arnold Schwarzenegger - nice! Overall, if you want to watch this movie to see Tony Jaa, don't bother. If, however, you've got a couple of hours spare and can do with cheering up, the dubbing makes this film a million times better to watch, due to its ironic humour.

I don't know if even Tony Jaa realises he's in this film, though.

I have recently been introduced to two of the best martial arts movies ever - Ong Bak and The Warrior King aka The Protector. I saw this film in the shop for a decent price. On the cover there was a huge picture of Tony Jaa. On the back it went on: "Tony Jaa, Tony Jaa, Tony Jaa..." which made me believe Tony Jaa was in this film, doing his thing. I bought the film, and was bitterly disappointed.

Although the film was made on a tiny budget, you can't deny that there is a lot of action in this film. Unfortunately, most of the fighting is second-rate, but there is a lot of it. There is very little dialogue, and almost constant hand-to-hand, and sword-fighting. On the whole, though, the film is very, very cheap.

The biggest disappointing factor of this film is the fact that I couldn't find Tony Jaa in it. I know he must be in it somewhere, as other reviews state that he was there near the end, but where?? Once again, we've been had. In a similar way to Jackie Chan headlining a film in which he has a one-minute cameo (like Michelle Yeoh's Supercop), the box design is nothing but false advertising. This film was re-released once Tony Jaa had made a name for himself, and was credited as a Tony Jaa film. That's like saying that The Warrior King is a Jackie Chan film because he appears for five seconds at Sydney Airport.

Judging this film as a normal film, and not a Tony Jaa film, however, it is still a very poor movie, and not even worth bargain bin prices.

Originality is the order of the day with LittleBigPlanet. From the moment the game starts, it lets you know that you're playing something that resembles nothing you've experienced previously.

Essentially, the game is a platformer, with levels created by the developers, and levels created by gamers and shared with the world. Items collected on the one-player solo campaign can be added to the levels the gamer wants to create themselves.

As far as design goes, the Sack-boy (main character/avatar) can be altered to look like almost anything the gamer wants, which allows for originality, identity, and self-importance, but at the end of the day, all costumes (whether downloaded or attained via the levels) are still rather cartoonish and this function may only appeal to children.

The overall look of the game is one of quirkiness, cuteness, and dream-like imaginings. This look is appealing to the eyes of most people, but one can't help but feel they might be playing a game intended for children. It is not a surprising notion that most people over eighteen who own the game will not shout this fact to the whole town, as one look at it might be seen by outsiders as being akin to a grown-up watching Teletubbies or Rugrats. The look of this game, however, is deceptive, as many aspects of the game require intelligence, speed-of-thought, tactical nouse, and creativity to complete.

The music in the game is both beautiful and varied. It is easy to tell that a lot of effort went into composition of the music, as the soundtrack contains sweet melodies that can only charm the ears.

The idea of creating your own levels and sharing them with the world is the number one selling-point of LittleBigPlanet, and the main reason for so much hype leading up to this title's release. But when one is sat with the controller in their hand, and a blank canvas on which to paint all one's ideas, it is amazing how blank the mind can go. Although the gamer is instructed how to perform every creative action in level design, and although it all seems so straightforward, creating one's own level is time-consuming, draining, and boredom-inducing.

People who have created their own levels, need to have spent hours on their creations. It takes a lot of time and effort to make a level that is not only playable, but also enjoyable and completable. Poor levels need not be released on the network, because other gamers will give them low ratings and the levels may not be played by the gaming community much longer after that. In short, the committed creator will love this, whilst others, who prefer the "turn-on and play" aspect of a game, will lose interest in this function within an hour.

On the whole, LittleBigPlanet offers a quirky, new way of making friends online, and sowing one's creative seed. The graphics and designs of the game look child-oriented, and indeed the levels created can vary in difficulty, appealing to both adult and child gamers. However, one needs to have a creative touch and the patience of a saint to take the creation aspect of the game seriously. Perhaps this game is not worth all the hype that has been generated, but then again, not many games are. What this game does show is that the technology is now available to the gamer for them to create what they want, and the will of the gaming community to try other people's wares has been there for a while now - it just needed the tool to do it, and here it is.