Reviews

In the 70's I queued like every other kid to see Star Wars. I'm of that generation who grew up with it, it was always present in our lives and some say, shaped our generation's whole attitude and outlook. The soul-crushing disappointment of Jarjar and the prequels is part of the reason we're so cynical - and why, I've never been excited about any Star Wars movie or spinoff since. Like other fans my age I curbed my enthusiasm to avoid another terrible flop. And up until now, that was the right approach. There HAVE been moments - some of the cartoons had some interesting new characters and ideas. Some of the movies had good visuals. And as Disney cranked up the money-making machine, we've had no shortage of Star Wars content. But so far, nothing has come close to the original 3 movies. They just don't feel as grounded, the stories and the characters don't ring true. Mandolorian looked like it might be close (and apparently the kids like it) but for original fans, it fell short. The sets looked like hokey spaghetti westerns with hapless extras just milling around. Yes, I get that the directors were giving a nod to westerns, but maybe just stick to doing Star Wars well first? The story was lackluster, the characters were flat and it's hard to connect emotionally with a helmet. Plus the transparent addition of the overly cutesy 'Baby Yoda' thing was pure marketing and actually kind-of offensive. Anyway, I could go on but enough bellyaching about the failures.

Finally, Andor is the TV series fans have been waiting for. The story takes unexpected twists (just like real life!), it's affected by characters who feel real and react with real human emotions, and it's set in a world that feels gritty, purposeful and grounded in reality. People are doing things, going places, and have purpose. It's dirty and crowded and things are there for logical reasons - not just to pad out the set. When Bix is rushing through the town, she has to push past people, and even quickly acknowledges someone she knows (which in a town that size, of course she would). It's these little details that make this Star Wars feel genuine - and so unlike the stagey nonsense in Mando and Obi-Wan. Basters look - and sound dangerous. The action scenes don't feel staged or contrived. Is it perfect? Well, no. But I'm just 3 episodes in, and for the first time in 40 years, I actually want to know what happens next. For the first time in 40 years I've let myself get excited for the rest of the series - and the prospect of more, perhaps even better ones, to come. I feel like that 6 year old kid again, reliving scenes, talking about it with friends, and once more enjoying the anticipation of the next adventure in a galaxy far, far way.

A seemingly random collection of thoughts slung together with a bit of eye-candy but no coherence or believability. The hammy sets, wooden acting and silly costumes remind me of 70's into early 80's scifi. But they have an excuse - they didn't have the benefit of CG and access to the physical and digital effects we have today, they were bringing scifi to the masses for the first time. The planet 'Wolves' is set on looks just like a quarry on Earth. It's like we're watching Blake's 7, Dr. Who or early Star Trek. Then we're asked to believe the super high-tech androids sent to raise the new seed of humanity are into home spun. The androids themselves wear spray on, uncomfortable to look at plastic suits (clearly in the future we lose our both our dignity and fashion sense) yet they make their kids wear chunky woollen ponchos. What they make them out of is a mystery when there's narry a sheep to be seen. So many little things like this annoyed me about 'Wolves'. Often with scifi you have to suspend belief, give in to a few little conceits to enjoy it. But 'Wolves' has too many stupid things that make no sense, and too many bad scifi tropes. The android killing people with her scream? WTF. Seriously? And you package this killing machine up in the body of an emotionally unstable bronze woman? Who levitates. But only with the right eyes in? It's so, so silly. The cast is like the United Colours of Benetton - which is very PC and woke and all, but also kind-of distracting. It feels shoehorned in. And again, makes no sense. The world's a melting pot of cultures and colours. A thousand years into the future surely we'll all be a mixed up lot. Yet here we have extremely clearly defined races. It feels wrong. The central plot of the religious wars just doesn't ring true - all these jokers wandering around dressed as knights of the templar - in the future? They even have little perspex shields LOL! Christianity obviously makes a MASSIVE comeback in the future huh. Despite all the different, clearly defined cultures? And they're so inconsistent with it. One minute they're talking like Amish or Luddites, next they're all into technology same as the Atheists. One minute they're hating on androids, next you realise half of them ARE androids. Makes no sense. What else? Oh the giant lizard skeletons lying around everywhere ala 'New Hope'. On a planet with nothing to eat. To have animals of that bulk, you need a LOT of food. Just another poorly thought out prop and one you could easily live with. But all these stupid little things add up to one big mess. The plot is like they're making it up as they go along. The costumes look like they were stolen from Logan's Run. The CG is just OK with crashed ships and whatnot. But the pods we see a lot of look lazy and not particularly believable. All in all, I have no idea how this show has garnered such a high rating. It's higher than ground-breaking scifi classics like Star Wars, Aliens, and Blade Runner. Again, this makes no sense to me. This is a soon to be forgotten bit of nonsense shouldn't have even got a second season. 'Wolves' is just another bad Lost in Space clone in my book. And I'm not going in to bat for the 'Lost in Space' remake but it was so much more believable and coherent than this nonsense.

This piece of trash was so bad I was actually moved to write a review. I want to save you wasting your time watching it. You're welcome. I mean, who thought this movie was a good idea? Who sat down around a table and said "yeah, let's tell the story of some gang guys collecting their taxes until it all goes wrong." Were they under the impression it's never been done before? Did they feel they had something new to offer this overcrowded genre? Because if they did, they were sorely mistaken. It just lurched from one cliche to the next; Main character collects from the nastiest gangs in LA - but really, he's a teddy bear with a heart of gold. Ugh. A family man. Ugh. And a man of God and morals. Ugh. We had awful buddy chats in the car (a wee laugh about the fact they're psychopathic killers). Then we had moments with the kids to drive home the idea they're really good guys. Cut to a martial arts training montage reminiscent of bad 80's straight to video action flicks. Flashbacks to happier days like something a teenager would do in a 48hour film fest (but at least they'd do it with a sense of irony). And if that wasn't bad enough, the writers even added some clumsy exposition to make sure we could keep up (with an infantile plot a 4 year old could follow?). There was violence sure - if you like that kind of thing, but it was artlessly done and for the most part, unnecessary . Acting? Ugh. Art direction and grade. Ugh. Just the opening credits were enough to make me want to leave. They looked as poorly conceived, dated, and rushed out as the rest of the film. Seriously, what were they thinking when they decided to make this crap?

It's a cliche to say the book was better. But it really was. This movie was so bad it actually tainted the memory of Eoin Colfer's excellent series. I heartily recommend you purchase the books instead, read them, and never watch this rubbish. Even if you get it free, you're still wasting your time and ruining a good read. I always thought the series was so visually descriptive and imaginative that it was just crying out for a film franchise. But somehow Disney took a gift brief and utterly stuffed it. Mulch Diggums should've been great but they made him a Hagrid clone who ends up clumsily narrating the whole story because the film-makers were too lazy or stupid to write a decent script. Dame Judy Dench is utterly wasted. Colin Farrell likewise. Neither have much to do but plod through heavy handed exposition. The titular Artemis Fowl is poorly acted and somehow they wrote out a lot of the reasons the character was so well loved. Throughout the books he's a bit of a nerd - and proud of it. He's the brains not the brawn - a positive role model to young kids who are more academic than sporting. But no. The opening scene has Artemis surfing like a pro and jumping a hoverboard. Later he fires a laser gun like he's been doing it all his life. Very disappointing. And so much for the 'little people'. Obviously budget didn't stretch to scaling pixies and leprechauns down because they were all adult size - just a set of pointy ears and done. Imagine if the Hobbits in Lord of the Rings were just people size. Half the charm is that they're little yet make a big difference. It's just lazy. Only a smattering of terrible CGI... I don't even know what they were - gnomes?? reminded us of the rich vein of legends and stories this movie steadfastly refuses to acknowledge. This was most evident in Holly who looked like a child, not a small adult. And Judy who was large and in charge as Commander Root - a curmudgeonly male in the book. Folley is horribly over-acted. Butler and his daughter are an awful token effort to inject some coloured actors. It feels forced and yeah, nice work Disney, you made him the butler. The ubiquitous CG effects give the whole thing a synthetic look. It felt like a horrible mishmash of early 90's Marvel movies and the worst bits of Harry Potter - filmed entirely on blue screen sets with stagey lighting. Aaarrg. I could go for hours. Just take my word for it and go read the books. Like the prequel Star Wars movies - forget this film exists or it'll ruin the previous material for you.

Back to the 90's we go in this highly forgettable action flick that obeys every cliche and adds exactly nothing to the genre. Brooding tough guy? Check. With a layer of scars and calluses from countless unnamed wars? Check. That are hiding a the soft centre of a genuinely good man? Also check. Right, let's have a quick flashback to hint at his tragic backstory and explain why he's so broken and self destructive. Done. And give him one last mission - a rescue, someone vulnerable that reminds him of his tragic loss. The list of action tropes goes on and on - right down to the pretty lady, the hint of new beginnings, of a relationship that can happen once the hero's dealt with his demons. *slaps forehead and sighs* There's just no reason for this thing to exist - other than to prove Hemsworth can do more than Thor. Which he probably can, but this does little for his case. The plot is purille; Rescue drug dealer's kid, oh no, we've been double-crossed (imagine that) but we'll carry on despite the fact he's nothing to us because it's the right thing to do. Even if that means killing hundreds of police with families who are just doing their jobs, a whole lot of innocent bystanders, truck loads of bad guys and a few highly trained professional mercenaries. This makes not a lick of sense considering at one point the mercenaries actually say they couldn't keep the kid safe even if they could pull off the rescue. This is glossed over at the end. The characters are flat and predictable. We know the bad guys are bad because, like Bond villains, they just stand around throwing kids off buildings and doing evil stuff. A lot has been said about the action but really, it's just OK. It's mostly down to shaky camera work making everything seem faster and more frenetic. The location is the film's one interesting point. And also the source of some of the problems with the action. There's a few chase scenes that anyone who's tried to drive in India would know are impossible. Pedestrians etc jump out of the way like in a bad computer game. And in one scene a speeding vehicle comes out of absolutely nowhere to hit poor Chris. Despite the fact we've just see that all the narrow streets are blocked. Inconvenient. But don't worry, we'll just take this truck that's conveniently appeared - from the same narrow alleyways that we've just seen to be jam-packed with people and overturned stalls and carts and whatnot. And drive off at speed. The simplistic plot goes from dumb to dumber as we head towards the inevitable showdown on the bridge we caught a glimpse of at the beginning. It's the typical 'we have to get from A to B' scenario via the hardest way possible ignoring any possible alternatives. "The police have all the bridges blocked? And for some obscure reason you can't get a chopper to us until we get to the other side?! Umm, what about a boat?" "Shhhh. You're spoiling it." This is anachronistic, dated, dumb action that simply shouldn't be. After watching 6 Underground which felt fresh and interesting (for a popcorn action movie), you have to wonder why Netflix greenlit such a backward leap for the genre.

Big giant robots punching big giant aliens in the face. Even with this puerile premise you'd think with the millions of dollars at Del Toro's disposal, he could've come up with something better than this mental diarrhea. With every cliché in the book, combined with every Del Toro cliché in the book, it's not only a crap-fest plot-wise, it's also visually awful. In one frame everyone's bathed in blue light. Next it's yellow, then it's red. As if it was not only written by an 8-year old, but filmed by one too. There's inappropriate steampunk sets, all of Del Toro's favourite 'actors' doing their best wood impressions and so many bad computer graphics you can virtually see the mouse pointer hovering over the screen. There is nothing in this film to recommend it. How it's garnered a score above 7 is beyond me. I guess Hollywood's squeezing out so many turds at the moment, audiences are just getting used to the taste.

What a fantastic documentary! I was ready to dismiss it – I'd heard the argument about coal- burning electricity production and it seemed pretty fair to me. But this film goes into so much more depth and detail. And while it talks about science and politics, it manages to be highly entertaining at every turn.

I think this is due in part to the sincerity and warmth of the characters involved in trying to save the iconic EV1 (Chelsea Sexton is my new hero). I think the interviewers did a great job of getting people's views and personalities across. I thought they'd be a bunch of nuts, but within minutes I was ready to pull my gas-guzzler to bits in sympathy. I wanted an electric engine, I wanted to become a part of the movement that these people so passionately believed in.

Both sides of the argument seemed to get a fair hearing. And they managed to get interviews with some very interesting people at all levels. The arguments made by the film where coherent and well-structured, and the footage they managed to find was great considering just how badly GM wanted it destroyed.

This is everything a good documentary should be. Even if you have no interest in cars or the environment or the dodgy dealings of the oil industry, see this movie. I'll open your eyes.

Let me just open by saying, I'm not overly religious. I'm sure there'll be plenty of comments here from staunch proponents on both sides of the argument. But the idea of this site is to critique the movie itself – not the opinions expressed within. And while personally, I tended to agree with almost everything the film was trying to get across, I really wasn't impressed with the way it was done.

Let's face it, making religious zealots look crazy, is like trying to make the North Pole look cold. Any decent documentary maker would try to go a little further, push a little harder and get some slightly more interesting insights or arguments.

Bill picked ridiculously easy targets with little or no authority on the matter. It felt like his team hadn't had enough time to organise interviews with anyone that might actually have something to say. Where were the religious scholars? The theologians, the professors, the psychologists and historians? These people could've given us an insight into why this crazy thing called religion exists and why our society clings to it, even when rational minds are screaming in protest.

And it has to be said, while he might be a half-decent comedian, Bill Maher is a terrible interviewer. He manages to get almost everyone's ire up within 2 questions. A good interviewer would give people the rope to hang themselves. Fein interest, get people to open up and really tell the camera what they believe. You need to build a rapport, get people to trust you. Bill just launches in and attacks, cracking jokes that get missed or cause offence. From the word go, the interviewee is on the defense and we don't get to hear just how crazy they really are.

The entire documentary is very one-sided. A huge amount of time was given over to Maher's personal rants on the subject of religion. And even if you agree with him, that gets old after about 10 minutes. If you don't agree, I think it would be an incredibly frustrating movie with nobody to hold up the side of the more moderately religious – who surely outnumber the nuts a million to one.

Also, I would've liked to have seen some social or political philosophers putting up a few solutions. Yes it's nuts to trust our leadership to some guy who believes in talking snakes instead of evolution. But what's the solution? If religion is out-dated, how do we progress? Throw around some ideas, delve into some issues. Don't just say all religious people are crazy.

I had to laugh at some of the cut scenes from old movies (they did a great job of finding those), but again, it was all too easy. Some of the interviews were so lame they had to superimpose jokes and one-liners over the top. That's like coming up with a witty retort 10 minutes too late.

Like Bill Maher, I used to have debates with my mum about religion. I always won. And in a way, I was hoping this movie might be able to put up some interesting arguments. But no. All in all, it was boarder-line watchable. A bit boring for doubters and just plain frustrating for believers.

With a title like 'Mutant Chronicles', you can't expect much, and yet this genuinely horrible piece of cinema fails to deliver even on that.

The story line is the sort of thing that only works in computer games - and let's face it, that's because most people just bash the fire button until they get to the action.

The special effects are special certainly, but not in a good way. More like the 'developmentally challenged' kind of special that a straight shooter would just call retarded. Pick any nerd with an aversion to natural light and a fondness for their own body odour, give them Aftereffects on their home computer and they could do better.

Annoyingly, the director applies a liberal amount of that horrible 'Pleasantville' effect where the scene is desaturated and one 'important' part is picked out in colour. Come on guys, it's overused and passé. If you're going to dig it out of the effects box, you better have a damn good reason. And there wasn't a single one in Mutant Chronicles. Remember the red dress in Shindler's List? That's the right way to use the effect.

The over-treated, vignetted 'look', I suspect, came about for two reasons; Firstly, it's a great way to cover special effects crimes like quick and dirty blue screening (of which this entire movie is composed). Secondly, I'm sure it was a misguided attempt to create a 'stagey' storybook effect, similar to 300, Sin City or Sky Captain. But it's deceptively hard to get this sort of thing right. It's not just a filter you can drag and drop onto your footage. And with Mutant Chronicles, it looked like what it was - a way to cover the mean budget, shonky effects, and poor directing.

Some surprisingly big actors lend their name to this nasty bit of work – John Malkovitch for example. But not surprisingly, the performances are generally lackluster. I suspect the whole thing was acted out on a soundstage – it's pretty tough to get into character when you're staring at a blue bed sheet. And I bet dimes to dollars it was rushed through at a great rate of knots and the phrase "No, that was fine, let's move on" got a fair old airing.

Overall, I can't think of anyone I would recommend this to. Not even people who've played whatever game it's based on. You'll only end up wanting to bash the fire button until the story part's over. And sadly, there's no action-packed sideways scrolling shooter at the end of it, just credits.

2/10 on a good day.

What a diabolical farce of a TV show. I was never a huge fan of the original so I don't hate it because of the inevitable comparison. I just hate it because it's bad. Really, really bad.

You'd think if you were making a show where there's going to be a lot of interior shots of people in a car, you'd learn how to shoot the interior of a car. But no. Pretty much all interiors are laughably bad green screen shots.

The special effects on the car are nasty too, derived presumably from Transformers. There was no need for that.

And speaking of the car, as Kit is a pivotal character, he needs to have some personality. And I'm not just talking the make and model. In the original, campy though he was, Kit was an integral and entertaining part of the show. In this 'updated' version, he's blander than a grey Toyota Camry.

The rest of the crew are about as wooden, the plot is terrible, the back-story is a rolling cliché. I'm trying to think of something but there really is nothing at all to redeem this show.

If the series producers or anyone from the network is reading this (yeah right, when do they ever listen to the viewers?) please don't make any more. Seriously, you're just sullying the airwaves.

I watched this mini-series in two parts. I have to admit, the 1st part wasn't too bad. It had all the makings of a watchable movie - albeit one that you've already seen a few times. Think Outbreak mixed with just a hint of 28 Days Later. The setup was fine, the acting was fine, even the special effects were OK. The story developed with a bit of pace and at the end of 'act 1' I was wanting to know where it was going. Sadly, nowhere good.

It was like they ran out of steam. The entire 2nd half was just going through the motions so they could get it off their desks and move onto something better. There were long periods where nothing really happened. The pace fell away and the lab scenes (of which there were many) would've been laughable if they weren't so boring.

As for character development, you'd think with the future of humanity hanging in the balance they could've found some slightly more worthy candidates to work on the 'solution'. However the great thinkers that were assigned to the task of saving us from the deadly threat seemed like the kind of folks who'd need an instruction manual to tell them how to boil the kettle.

As it ground to its trite, predictable all-American ending where everyone comes away happy, things began to get desperate. The special effects dipped to sub-par, and were generally unnecessary anyway. We don't need to see a colour-coded representation of a virus spreading, a few dead things would've done the job. Of course then very stupid people wouldn't be able to see it retreating, and by this point, I suspect only stupid people were still paying attention.

In the end you weren't so much suspending disbelief for the sake of the story, you were taking disbelief, hanging it, drawing it and quartering it. And even then it was a stretch. Shame when the actual plot offered such potential. It's been a while since I've seen an Outbreak remake. The 'touch of 28 Days Later' I mentioned earlier would've put a nice spin on it, if they'd worked the angle. And with everyone paranoid about the terrorist threat, what better time to work that in as well?

Could've been at least average, but seriously fell short in the 2nd half. I'd give it a miss. Unless it's Sunday afternoon, it's raining and you're really, really bored.

I tracked this movie down after watching Survive Style Five - which I discovered by accident. Why these films aren't more popular is beyond me. Certainly in New Zealand, they were very hard to find - but well worth it. Katshuhito Ishii is a genius - as a writer, a director and editor. His mind obviously works on a different plane. Often his stories seem completely random but as things progress, you find they knit together to form a complete story. His work is like nothing I've seen in Western cinema, it feels completely fresh, you never know what will happen next. The characters can be quite wild, but they all have elements you can empathize with. The artdirection also swings from everyday to insane. And somehow it all comes together to form a totally entertaining, complete whole. While some scenes are surreal (to say the least) there's always a humanistic element and interest. If you want something different, if you're tired of the formulaic garbage the Hollywood marketing machine churns out, try Taste of Tea or Survive Style. They put a new spin on real emotion. They're definitely worth tracking down.

I really enjoyed this movie. Normally I would only bother writing a comment if I LOVED or HATED a film. I'll say now, this isn't a groundbreaking piece of cinema, nor is it the best movie I've seen in ages, but it was a good story, well told. The acting varied from good to excellent (Forrest being excellent), the characters were interesting and the plot held together quite well. There was enough action and intrigue to keep you awake without it turning into an explosion fest, and enough drama and emotion to make you feel something without getting too soppy. The artdirection was superb and scenes were edited nicely - camera angles and techniques never got in the way of the story. There was nothing outstanding about the film but I would highly recommend it to anyone wanting a good bit of Friday night entertainment - something you can share with a partner, friends or family and not end up squirming in your seat.

If you like this, you'll love Crash. Similar interconnecting stories, slightly more complex messages.

I've heard 'There Will Be Blood' described as a portrait of an unlikable man. Sadly that also makes the movie itself completely unlikable. It's beautifully framed and Daniel Day-Lewis is undoubtedly a consummate actor, however, as a piece of entertainment 'Blood' is weaker than water. It is ponderous, portentous and overly self-important. Other than the son and his wife who we hardly see, there are no characters to like or relate to. The scenery is repetitive and bleak, the colours are monotonous. The film drags along like an overly long opera – or an epic funeral dirge. Which brings me to the award for the worst score ever. OK, I'm sure there are worse, but this movie contained some of the most annoying, inappropriate and ill-timed 'music' I've ever heard. From headache inducing modern classical – which mainly seemed to consist of murdering the entire string section, to something I could only describe as horror suspense with detuned orchestral stabs usually reserved for budget slashers. It was like I was watching the wrong soundtrack - none of what I was hearing seemed to fit with what I was seeing. If you plan to watch this at the theatre, take your ipod and crank it up, otherwise wait for the DVD and hit mute. You won't miss much and your ears will thank you for it. Judging by the high rating the movie has here 'There Will Be Blood' is obviously high art and I missed the point. But I know what I like and this is one portrait that ain't going' on my wall.

So hard to rate. I want to give it a low score for being one of the worst films I've seen in ages. But I want to give it a high score for being absolutely hilarious. I guess it all depends on how you take the genre. If you're a fan of grindhouse and low-budget exploitation flicks, look no further. If you don't get why people find bad movies good, maybe this isn't for you.

While I think Chesty's unfeasibly large breasts were somehow supposed to be titillating (excuse the pun), they're actually rather unfortunate. As the plot revolves entirely around her hauling them out at every opportunity, it's a bit like watching a car wreck. You want to look away, but can't. Her 'acting' is self conscious verging on just plain scared.

The cameraperson hoses their rig around zooming and panning with total disregard for their shadow. If they'd been able to afford a mic boom instead of badly overdubbing, I'm sure the camera would've caught that too.

The cutaways are absolutely classic. Found footage is spliced in with total disregard for what's around it. My favourite scene involves a car blowing up. If you look really closely, you might just notice it's not the car they were driving. Especially as it's a different colour. And make. And it's not in the same place…

In short, Double Agent 73 is pure genius. You couldn't make a movie this bad if you tried. And that's exactly what makes it so good.

I read a few reviews about this film before watching and I'm beginning to wonder if they haven't all been written with the Korean authorities standing behind the reviewers at gun point.

The plot line is childish and dated. It's basically Godzilla with a bizarre touch of Outbreak.

The acting made me cringe. It oscillates from hokey, comedic and frenetic to overly heavy and portentous. The English dub is done by voice overs who are even worse than the original actors - which believe me, is quite a feat.

The editing is bad, certain scenes were protracted to an uncomfortable degree for no apparent reason. Mid chase the family have dinner. I could've gone out and had mine in roughly the same time and caused the same amount of excitement.

Special effects, B grade. I wasn't too bothered about them - they certainly don't live up to current Hollywood standards, but for such a rotten movie, they're on par. The actual monster was animated fairly well, but the design was a hotchpotch and not particularly believable. Given the resources that were obviously thrown at this, most Polytech grads could do better.

People have waxed lyrical about the scenery - the mighty Han etc. What I saw was a muddy grey river, concrete walled and full of sewerage. The rest of the city was reduced to, at best, the occasional skyline. The director chose to blur the background out most of the time. There was certainly nothing there to encourage a visit, that's for sure.

The camera work was pretty good in places, I'll grant them that.

But overall, a dreadful Godzilla remake. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. The resources that went into this pile of poo could've been put to much better use. Except the 'actors', who should never appear on a screen again.

I'm not Korean, maybe I missed nuances that appeal to an Asian audience, but I doubt it. I just can't understand how anyone bar the cast's mums and dads could say they enjoyed this with a straight face.

Absolutely superb. I don't think I've ever given anything a 10/10 before, but for a TV show, Deadwood is excellent - and given the crap we're generally subjected to on the box, absolutely outstanding. The sets, the research, the directing, the characters, the acting - all shine. And without wanting to sound gushy, the script is close to Shakespearian in its prosaic yet pragmatic tone. The juxtaposition of the grit and dirt and blood of the real 'Wild West' with formal Victorian language is genius. Even the opening credits are beautiful. It may not be everyone's cup of tea (the language and content can be a little 'strong' although entirely appropriate and in context) but anyone who's a fan of quality entertainment, shouldn't go past it.

Not bad. The special effects were amazing but I think they went a little overboard. There were so many explosions and bullets flying, at times it was hard to see what was going on. This I think, is a function of creating movies on computers. Monitors are sharp and detailed, you're looking at the action on a smaller screen, over and over and frame by frame when it's being created. Then it's unleashed on a big screen and it's just too much to take in at once. Especially with the overwhelming sound. I kept wanting it to slow down for a second so I could see the robots in all their awesome animated glory. But they were too busy shooting at each other and throwing themselves into things (which then disintegrate in a very satisfying manner). Storyline-wise, there wasn't any. But let's face it, it's a popcorn movie with giant robots adapted from a cartoon. You don't go to see a film like that for telling insights into the human condition. I thought the romance between the two main characters was a bit Disney, and the offhand jokes were pretty hokey, but hey, they joined the dots nicely between the explosions. All in all, a good fun film, I'd watch it again - maybe on DVD when it comes out, but I don't think I'll be adding it to my top 10.