Having just finished watching this film and staring at the TV screen in bewilderment, I wondered whether it had been made as some sort of sick joke. I immediately checked this brilliant website out to see if there had been any comments posted, and was so relieved to see so many others shocked, dismayed, depressed and utterly gobsmacked at the appalling plot and well known actors performances. I, like most other contributors, had bought this film for 99p merely because Michael Caine was in it, and then I read that someone else paid only 97 pence, I was indeed robbed! Most of the screen and script blunders have been covered, especially about the unconvincing 'security' van, but the scene where James Fox fires his shotgun at Caine's Mercedes back window, leaving a neat hole and managing to hit Caine's head???? Excuse me, have they redesigned shotguns, then, the back window would have been blown clean out or shattered, most of the shot would have lodged in the glass, surely? A cellphone signal blocked by one sheet of metal suspended from a crane, ummmhh, who was their technical consultant? The opening scenes feature a radio shack(what was Tandy in Europe)microphone dangling from an amusingly long piece of connecting cable. If this high security load was as important as it was made out to be, why use a radio shack microphone? Professional communications equipment would have been used like Motorola, Yaesu, Icom, etc. The screen readout supposedly showing them which routes to use was just a few coloured lines on a plain screen, no background grid, and utterly amateurish. Come to think of it, where did all the plug and jack equipment come from, why was it there, it was clearly obsolete, even for 1998 when the film is said to have been made. Mine is dated 2006, which hurts even more. All the equipment necessary for communications between the van and its base would have been an encrypted duplex fm transceiver, or a small microprocessor controlled cell phone. The strangulation of the equally unconvincing escort girl took place in his car, with her almost looking at him. Now I am no strangulation expert, but I thought the general idea was to be behind the victim so as to make it almost impossible for the victim to stop being strangled, the death occurring by compressing the Adam's apple into the throat - anyway, it just did not look convincing to me. I am utterly, no, totally bemused as to why Michael Caine, (is it Sir Michael now?) allowed himself to be duped into making this. Its his name that is selling the movie (or was it just a very long trailer?)Was he that short of money? One of my favourite films of his is Fourth Protocol, where he acts superbly, but of course The Italian Job takes some beating. I guess actors like this don't get much work these days, so they have to accept what they are offered, in fear of it being their last, its a great pity. I believe in years to come this film will be very valuable and rare because so many people would have thrown it away in disgust, and it will reach record prices on ebay, I am keeping mine just in case.


If ever there were a film more mystifyingly pointless than this £1 shop favorite, it's hard to imagine  and even harder to tell exactly what possible audience it was made for. On paper it sounds uninspired but reasonable enough, with Caine's old school armed robber planning to steal paper used for banknotes with inside information from James Fox's toff and electronic help from Kenneth Colley's terminally ill security guard. Only that's only half the story - much of the plot is taken up by a bullied chubby schoolboy who stumbles across the bloody aftermath of one of Caine's botched armoured car jobs but can't get anyone to believe him. Amazingly the botched robbery is never reported to the police, so they just go on not believing him throughout the film while he's cruelly bullied by the vicious, er, school choirboys, one of who is nearly four foot tall. Producer-director Reeve seems to think the film's suspense lies on whether he'll still be able to sing in the choir competition.

It's all played out almost like the kind of movie that Tim Nice But Dim would make if he ever became a producer, throwing loads of money at Michael Caine and getting a few down on their luck character actors down to the family estate for the weekend. Ponies, fancy dress parties, public schools with headmasters in tennis attire, suggestive dialogue about lacrosse - even in the 50s this would have seemed a somewhat outdated view of Britain, but in a late-90s crime thriller it's just pitiful. Just to add to the amateurishness, some of the parts are played by real teachers, vergers or cops (no prizes for. Guessing wh. ich onesfromtheir. Awkward line. Delivery), not to mention the director's daughters. As if that weren't home movie enough, it's the kind of film where even the ponies get credited and where characters have picnics in abandoned factories to explain the backstory at great length. TV crime reconstructions have more panache than this flattened relic, and to make matters even worse, the final double-double cross is almost Robbie Moffat bad, and that's not a claim I make lightly. No surprise that this skipped theatres and went straight to ultra-cheap DVD, but you'll still find yourself wondering how and why it ever got made in the first place.


Like a previous poster, I availed of this film in Woolworths in Blackpool while on a trip and pretty flush for cash. I still feel aggrieved. Truly, the worst film I have ever witnessed. The plot is ridiculous, in particular the killing of the prostitute. Why?

It really is an embarrassment to film making. Unbelievably dire. What was Caine thinking? Indeed what was Leslie Grantham thinking. This was his worst decision prior to the web cam episode. The kid is only likable because he is fat and ugly, and you cant help but feel that he's the type to be bullied. The choir aspect is pointless, and I struggle to recall a worse film ever! Well maybe American Dreamz.


It took quite a while before I could figure out all of the pieces of this scheme and the people involved which I enjoy. I don't like to know everything within the first ten minutes. Caine plays a crook and somehow manages to get a local schoolboy involved in his scheme. Or the schoolboy decides to help Caine with his crime. Caine is a great actor. He is very believable as always. Good dialogue and other actors were very good (Caine's callgirl, School Headmaster and Professor). There aren't any hum-drum moments in this film. The excitement/suspense slowly keeps building up scene after scene. The gigantic church on the outskirts of town becomes the focal point of the heist becoming a success and at the last minute they have to shake it down so their plan won't fail. There's a lot of suspense and tense moments. Caine winds up being too ruthless for my tastes and the ending kind of fell short for me. But it's worth a look.


Being a devoted Michael Caine fan I was horrified after watching "Shadow Run" that I indeed had spent money on the DVD. Usually even if Michael Caine stars in a bad movie he himself is still a pleasure to watch. Somehow this doesn´t seem to be the case here. I don´t know who to blame first.


Dull and frequently inept caper film is never suspenseful and often seems to make little sense. Caine is a veteran criminal who kills numerous people, seemingly for no other reason than to show what a dangerous bastard he is and to make the audience fear for the life of a chubby kid that the movie keeps cutting to. Film stars out with said chubby little boy stumbling across a van with blood dripping out of the back. Caine pops up. warns the boy menacingly that he didn't see a thing, gives him a twenty pound note and sends him on his way. The boy promptly goes to school and tells everyone he comes into contact with what he saw, but since he's prone to exaggeration and tall tales nobody believes him. Of course, since there's no indication that Caine cleaned up the crime scene and since the film takes place not in a big city but in a more remote part of England, you would think something would turn up to corroborate the boy's story. Things just get worse from there. Initially the scenes in Shadow Run seem so disconnected I thought the director was filming out of order ala Pulp Fiction. Nope. Michael Caine's character is at the heart of what's wrong with the movie: he's a vet thief that who seems to kill someone in cold blood every twenty minutes or so. At one point he admonishes a confederate in the next job for trying to figure out a way to pull off the robbery without killing any innocent people. What kind of thief wants to kill if it isn't necessary? If Caine were some twenty year old hothead you might be able to buy it, but a man in his late sixties? It hardly seems likely that Caine's character would live as long as he has or that anyone would want to work with or hire such a psycho. His character isn't believable and neither is this boring and dreadful film.


I think the film has great atmosphere, with its contrasting seediness of the gangsters and the magnificence of the cathedral and its music. Joffrey's character, too, is interestingly developed, and gives credibility as to why he should be drawn to character like that of Haskell. I do not see Haskell's failure to kill Joffrey as inconsistent. Rather, it suggests that Haskell has some redeeming qualities and, like the rest of us, is not all bad. One can understand why he would hesitate to kill a child, not least because he senses the boy's admiration for him. Kenneth Colley provides an excellent supporting role . His willingness to die without further treatment in order to help his ex-wife financially suggests a certain nobility of character. I certainly do not agree with the reviewer's dismissal of the film as second rate. It has a style and quality of its own which makes it enjoyable to watch and provokes thought.


This film is dreadful. It could have been so good....Caine, Tim Healy, James Fox, Lesie Grantham, but it sucks to high heaven.

Did Caine have a big bill to pay the year he made this? It looks like an episode of Wycliffe or as if it was made exclusively for Channel 5, but even these are too much like compliments foe what is a truly dreadful film.

The credits look like they were done on an Amiga 500.

In terms of the scenery, they seem to be going for the 'Inspector Morse' look, but it fails miserably. The child actors are hilariously bad....do private schools still exist like this?

Total and utter dross...I know Caine likes to keep busy but maybe it is time he started taking some pride in his output.


Just watched this unique Three Stooges short on YouTube. What's so unique about this one, you say? Well, if you've read the comments here or are familiar with Stooges history, this is the only time all three Howard brothers-Moe, Shemp, and Curly-appeared in the same scene together. I also believe the same film together. Anyway, Curly has a funny cameo as a passenger in a train with a derby on his head and a clothespin on his nose. When the boys lift the pin, Curly goes into his patented snore and "woo woos"! The rest was hilarious as well especially with the title animal causing havoc with the boys and scaring an African-American porter played by Dudley Dickerson though one may pause a little bit before laughing since that was a stereotype of that race at the time. Throw in Emil Sitka as the Stooges attorney and Kenneth MacDonald as the one who attempts to steal their inheritance and you've got one classic Stooge short! So yes, I highly recommend Hold That Lion!


All Stooge elements come together to form a cohesive whole in this early Shemp effort. The Stooges are sole heirs of their Uncle Ambrose Rose's estate. The boys track "Honest" Icabod Slipp (Kenneth MacDonald) who has made off with their inheritance. Will they find him and recover their inheritance?

With this film, Shemp Howard demonstrates no rustiness after being absent from the Stooges for 14 years. He fits comfortably into the third Stooge role; his fight with MacDonald is hilarious, and his natural comedic gifts are fully on display. The short features a classic exchange between Larry and Shemp: "The moola! The geetis! No slippery guy like Slipp is ever gonna cheat us! Zoot Zoot! Zoot!" If this sounds silly in words, watch the short and try not to crack up when Larry and Shemp say it!

As mentioned by others, "Hold That Lion" features a cameo by Curly Howard as a sleeping passenger. He demonstrates verbal signs of the old Curly, but he is obviously sitting down due to his stroke. He's funny in this brief scene, but it is also sad to watch.

The film was remade with a combination of stock footage and new scenes as "Loose Loot" in 1953. The remake is actually better, offering a tighter storyline and better laughs. "Hold That Lion" is still a gem, though. 7 out of 10.


The Three Stooges has always been some of the many actors that I have loved. I love just about every one of the shorts that they have made. I love all six of the Stooges (Curly, Shemp, Moe, Larry, Joe, and Curly Joe)! All of the shorts are hilarious and also star many other great actors and actresses which a lot of them was in many of the shorts! In My opinion The Three Stooges is some of the greatest actors ever and is the all time funniest comedy team!

This is one of My favorite Three Stooges shorts with Shemp! All Appearing in this short are Vernon Dent, Kenneth MacDonald, Emil Sitka, Heinie Conklin, Dudley Dickerson, Blackie Whiteford, and Curly Howard! This one is so hilarious! Shemp has a great performance here and in My opinion its one of his best. Culry has a great cameo! There is a similar one like this called Booty and the Beast and I strongly recommend both of these Three Stooges shorts!


THE STORY OF THE KELLY GANG is believed to be the world's first feature length film. Running at between 65 and 70 minutes, it was billed at the time as the longest film ever made. It toured Australia for nine years and was an enormous success.

Today only fragments survive, and it is hard to judge the film's artistic merits. About nine minutes of footage exists - some found on a garbage dump in Melbourne. Some of this footage may be out-takes. The footage is held by ScreenSound Australia, the National Screen and Sound Archive, in Canberra.

The sequences show some enthusiastic acting, although the camera-work is static (like most films of the period). The most remarkable shot is probably when a priest, carrying a wounded man over his shoulder, walks toward and just past the camera, creating a strong sense of drama and movement. The final shoot-out scene is also well filmed - with Ned Kelly moving, and shooting, toward the camera, as troopers flee to the sides.

A remarkable film, of great historical importance, that all film students should see. Up until World War 1, when initially neutral America began to dominate the world of film distribution, Australia had one of the most thriving and innovative film industries in the world.


This afternoon at the Barbican, I attended the UK premiere of the digitally restored 'The Story of the Kelly Gang', with excellent piano accompaniment by John Sweeney, as part of the opening day's programme for the Silent Film & Live Music Series running through June. It's also part of the London Australian Film Festival, likewise at the Barbican ... so, I actually ended up attending two film festivals simultaneously! The restored film is a double-bill with 'The Life Story of John Lee: The Man They Could Not Hang'.

'The Story of the Kelly Gang' is generally believed to be (and most likely WAS) the first feature-length movie ever made, produced in 1906. Sadly, the past tense is appropriate here, as the film is now not known to survive except in fragments ... and some of those do indeed appear to be out-takes, as a previous IMDb'er has noted. Actually, I've also seen (in Australia) another reel of this film: not a projection of the movie's image onto a screen, but rather I've seen (and touched) a mouldering reel of nitrate footage from the movie itself, now deteriorated beyond hope of restoration.

As a part-time Australian (born in Scotland, expatriated Down Under as a 'child migrant'), I ought to feel proud that Australia produced the first feature movie. However, quite enough films pre-dating 1906 survive (from various nations) to make it clear that a substantial amount of film technique -- the close-up, the dissolve, the cross-cut -- had already evolved before this movie was made. Watching this restoration at the Barbican, it occurred to me that credit for the single biggest innovation in 'The Story of the Kelly Gang' belongs not to the photographer, director, editor or scenarist, but rather to that most unsung of film figures ... old Smokey, the projectionist. Prior to 'The Story of the Kelly Gang', films were so short that it was possible to store two or more separate movies on one projection reel. And, each reel being a separate story, the breaks between reels were natural breaks in the narrative. Many early cinemas had only one projector, with live entertainment provided during the longeur while the previous reel was rewound before the next reel could be shown. However, when 'The Story of the Kelly Gang' was exhibited in its original form in Australia (and later in other countries), the projectionist had to maintain two sets of apparatus at the same go, so as to achieve a seamless transition between reels. I wonder how soon film editors began using a reel marker (traditionally in the frame's upper right-hand corner) to indicate that a reel was about to end.

Despite being largely missing in action, the original 'Story of the Kelly Gang' is of incalculable historic importance. As for the digital version which I enjoyed today, accompanied by Mr Sweeney's impressive performance on the keyboard, I'll rate it a full 10 out of 10. Bonzer, cobbers!


First of all, I think this film quite rightly got the plug it deserved on all of the Broadsheets in the UK. This might be partly due to the involvement of Ken Loach himself but also because it is a rather poignant essay of the one crucial aspect of globalisation  the richer countries exploiting the availability of the cheap labour available from the poorer countries.

This is not the first of its kind to be done, but this film had sympathy, warmth, objectivity and class and a viable plot. The whole film, however, is carried by Kierston Wareing, with no real development of other characters such as her business partner or even her dad, who both could have highlighted the different shades of the argument and perhaps externalised some of the conflicts that we all face when we encounter the by-products of such exploitation. By this, I mean the cheap strawberries in the supermarkets, casual builders, the "baristas" working behind the various Coffee chains and basically all of the other unsung victims who go to subsidising every aspect of our material life.

The basic kernel of the film does succeed to some extent in showing the different facets of the human character such as sympathy for the individual versus the indifference to the abstracted group; highlighting the similarities in the trials and tribulations of people in both the 'host' and the 'donor' countries; the fact that a lot of people are up for making a quick buck off the suffering of others; and that people exist who will try and be fair to others regardless of their backgrounds.

However, the reality might not be so clear cut and easily digestible. Perhaps not all of the immigrant workers are so docile and placid; perhaps not all immigrant workers are so subservient and accepting when the roles are reversed and the female becomes the sexual predator; perhaps not all immigrant workers insist on "passing on the favour instead of returning it".

While it is a noble effort and some effort has been made to highlight the plight of such immigrants, it is still just a snapshot of a much more knotty problem  a problem that we are all, to some extent, responsible for.

That said, "Bravo" to the fantastic Mr. Loach for agreeing to get his "hands dirty" with such a current and contentious subject.


I often feel like giving a film a ten somehow weakens the review and arguments but in my humble opinion this latest work from Ken Loach is absolutely spot on! The element I applaud the most is its nuances and subtlety. Nothing is black and white, the characters are complex and display at times total disregard for humanity and at others touching empathy, thereby making a stronger point of the complexity of the situation at hand. The plot is relatively simple, but small exchanges between the characters that seem irrelevant bring a great deal of humanity to the film. Kierston Wavering is absolutely magnificent as Angie and every single other "actor" (professional or not) featured is spot on. A moving, honest, brave yet depressing masterpiece!


I was able to attend a screening of the film at the Toronto Film Festival and have nothing but great things to say about it. The film follows Angie as she struggles to find herself in the world and take care of her young son. After being fired from her job she takes it upon herself to start a recruitment agency to bring cheap labour into England from eastern European countries. Although her intentions are good we learn throughout the film how difficult it is to keep things legitimate and even safe. Ken Loach does an amazing job of bringing this story out. It sends a strong message about immigration and labour without preaching. The story is essentially told from the corporations point of view through Angie and shows logic in their cost cutting measures, while at the same time presenting them as inexcusable. The film is gritty and even dirty looking which fits perfectly into the London underbelly that it is trying to show. Lastly the film begins and ends with the dynamic performance of unknown Kierston Wareing. Luckily she spoke at the screening because if she hadn't I wouldn't have been able to believe she was acting. A real star making performance that required nuance as well as strength. She created a real character who's decisions never seemed forced or contrived. I can't say enough good things about it, I hope that many people see this film so they can also appreciate it. The top notch script was created by long time Loach scribe Paul Laverty


STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

Angie (Kierston Waring) is fired from her job after not taking any cr*p off her boss who pinches her bum in public. Understandably riled, she decides to play him at his own game and set up her own recruitment agency (the job she was fired from in the first place) and dole out jobs for immigrant workers who will work below the minimum wage. However, she soon learns in this cut throat game the people at the top control everything and when she finds herself unable to pay her 'staff', things get nasty. Angie is driven to become more ruthless and mercenary as the stakes get higher.

I must confess I don't think I've seen a Ken Loach film before, but his style is hard to deny. Despite his work getting him noticed in Hollywood, his love for depicting British social realism has kept him firmly grounded on this side of the pond and by the looks of things, that's that with him.

Though not telling a true story, this is similar to Nick Broomfield's docu-drama Ghosts with it's themes of cheap immigrant workers keeping our economy flowing and the sh*tty deal they are dealt, coming here thinking Britain is the land of prosperity only to find themselves in a situation not much better than if they'd stayed at home. Pretty depressing stuff but then, that's what we do best and that's the way things are. This is a film full of characters to feel sorry for, trapped in a system that makes them all go over the edge, from Angie who has a soft, caring side that allows her to take an Iranian family under her roof after discovering them living in poverty to a need to succeed that sees her reporting a rival camp of illegal workers so she can move her own in to, of course, the workers with a genuine desire to work and contribute something who end up going through all that cr*p for peanuts.

The relentlessly grim tone doesn't make for a top viewing experience then, but this is still a relevant and interesting story that serves as great food for thought. ***


This movie is given an extra boost by its considerable realism. Acting, situations and people are so real that every character seems to be played by men and women in their lives, rather than by professional actors. Ken Loach limits himself to set out the problem and doesn't offer any solutions (that probably don't even exist); the huge problem is poor folks entering the UK, being exploited and given a starvation pay whereas many Britons think the problem of their country is them seeking a better life. The lead actress is shown as a very negative but memorable character, and every situation is seen from her angle, the one of a girl trying to redeem herself in such a negative way. Overall the film is excellent for its fullness and for its realistic roles (Angie's father as well).


Winner of the award for Best Screenplay at the Venice Film Festival, It's a Free World, the seventh collaboration between director Ken Loach and writer Paul Laverty, is a compelling look at the recruitment and exploitation of European undocumented workers, a subject touched upon recently in Stephen Frears' Dirty Pretty Things. As in many of Loach's earlier films, It's a Free World has a strong feeling for those who live on the margins in a society that does not care and, uncharacteristically for Loach, is surprisingly even-handed, showing the viewpoint of both the victim and the victimizer.

The film begins in Poland as a group of recruits gather around the CoreForce Recruitment Agency, willing to pay money for the right to work in the U.K. Given temporary visas, they manage to land jobs in construction, factory work, or farm labor at minimum wage without any trace of benefits or job security. When Angie (Kierston Wareing), a thirty-three year-old working class recruiter from London is fired for complaining about sexual harassment on the job, she joins with her roommate Rose (Juliet Ellis) in building her own agency in the U.K., matching immigrants from Eastern Europe with employers in London. Riding around on her motorbike, she interviews prospective employers and locates temporary shelters for her workers who must pay extra for the housing.

At the outset, conscious of the law and of her integrity, Angie establishes the rule that she will not provide employment to undocumented workers. Much to Rose's chagrin, Angie soon bends these rules and slowly begins to lose her moral compass, joining the competition in the recruiting and exploiting of illegal immigrants. Though she shows compassion in supporting an Iranian refugee who is desperately looking for work, she later calls the Immigration Department to arrest illegal workers who are living in housing provided by a competitor. Angie's change may be prompted by the reminder of her need to provide for her eleven-year-old son Jamie (Joe Siffleet) who has been living with her parents and has developed a proclivity to break other students' jaws at school.

Her father Geoff (Colin Caughlin) visits and tries to be encouraging about her new business but his stance is simple: immigrants have brought their troubles onto themselves and should not take up any of our concerns. When Angie justifies her actions by saying that if the workers didn't want the jobs, they wouldn't show up, it is reminiscent of politicians who blame the media for their moral and spiritual retreats. The issues crystallize when a friendly construction foreman is ripped off and Angie is unable to pay her workers, leading to a physical assaulted and a threat against Jamie by the angry workers.

In her first feature film performance, Kierston Wareing shows great promise as the blonde, leather-jacketed, motorcycle-riding entrepreneur who is willing to deal with the sleazier aspects of the business. With the knowledge that decades of public policy have led to this situation, however, Loach does not single her out as the only culprit, simply one who is unable to look beyond a value system that can only see what is in their immediate material self interest. Though It's a Free World is far less impactful than some of the earlier Loach-Laverty collaborations, it is a strong film that does not pull its punches and did not deserve a one-day U.K. opening and a direct-to-DVD treatment.


This film captures perfectly one of the many faults of capitalism, it portrays an extremely sad situation of the desperate struggle that some people have everyday to earn money. In this case it follows the exploitation of foreign workers who came to England (London) in desperate search of work, and the lengths they will go earn money. The central character (Angie) played by Kierston Wareing is a self employed recruitment agent an ambitious and vibrant women who wont take no for an answer, she has a certain cheek and charm that is compelling and shows us some level of kindness, but also has a darker side which she has no problems in showing to people. Her friend and flatmate (Rose) played by Juliet Ellis is portrayed as the more rational minded and frankly kinder person, who relapses that sometimes it's not always about the money. An inevitable twist of faith comes for Angie where she is put in the position of victim, but does this change her views on life?

It is very well directed, showing the viewer the dull and bleak industrial estates and caravan parks of London which really suits the story and the depressive feel of the script.

Ken Loach and Paul Laverty done a great job with this film and like most of Loachs films is a striking and damning account of the depression to be found in working class England.


As a non-Brit it is amazing and certainly amusing to see all the British behave in such a distinct way, only common to the islanders and I do not mean any of that slur which this politicised film tries to mobilise against. For example, scenes in which family is involved, are beautiful characterisations of more or less typical working class households, or rather any British folks.

However, this film as well portrays fair business, the downside of capitalistic societies, in which free market only stops at borders, where nationality defines status and not your labour. Refreshingly, no easy answers are offer, no left-leaning ideologies or right-wing polemics penetrate the film. Thus, it is able to scratch a picture of phenomena without solutions; hence, not very entertaining.

Anyway, it is worthwhile to watch It's a Free World,only if it were for the insightful studies into human behaviour.

Enjoy it.


There's a new exploited class in the Western world. The illegal immigrants. Since they've got no papers, they will take any work, any wage, any risks. And there are people who are just too eager to help them.

The main person here is fired from a recruiting agency. She starts her own and also starts to exploit people like she's been exploited. The free world means almost slavery, since people without papers have no rights. But those who provide companies with such labour force can easily become the victims in this perverted order.

Another Ken Loach movie which put the unpleasant questions. And gives the unpleasant answers.


Another slice of low life from Ken Loach, this is an "issue" picture dealing with trafficking in stateless workers. It's not the first, but this one features the astonishing Kierston Wareing, who landed this leading role after appearing briefly in just one TV episode. Kierston can play the pushy cow in the workplace, the caring neighbour and mother in private, and the tender lover in the bedroom. Strutting around getting her new business together, rounding up clients and welcoming curious workers, in all-black leatherette motor-bike togs, she makes this otherwise rather ordinary little drama stand out. When the going gets rough, she is utterly believable as the plucky fighter standing up for herself against an all-male world. When things go pear-shaped, she is the vulnerable female, but also the protective mother, as determined as any tigress. Throughout, we are rooting for her, even when she is obviously losing her way in a messed-up workaday world. At the end of the film, she is doing the wrong thing in order to do the right thing, and Loach has shown up brilliantly the conflicted people who traffic in the misfortune of their fellow workers. Definitely see this picture, if only to relish Kierston Wareing's maiden performance.


It's not often one sees a film on migrant workers in England from Eastern Europe. These workers are exploited as in underpaid or not paid. The film has a gritty and convincing performance from the lead actress (Kierston Wareing).

However there is a lack of logic and continuity in the movie. There are too many sub-plots that go nowhere and are distractive. She has an on and off again romance with a Polish worker which does not really add anything to the plot. She helps a family from Iran for a day and they conveniently disappear. The scenes with her son  who is being cared for by her parents  are more tangible.

At the end of the movie she is physically assaulted by workers who are demanding to be paid. They take her money and threaten to kidnap her son. The very next scene abruptly takes us to the Ukraine where she is continuing to recruit. Then the movie ends!!


If you are an avid fan of Ken Loach or at least have seen some of his movies so far, you will be familiar with his style. It's anything but glossy. It could be considered a documentary. The shooting style, the acting, the story overall.

What I really liked about the movie, is the ambiguity of the characters and their actions. And although it walks a thin line to be cliché, it never feels fake. The emotions are real, the moral decisions seem inspired and truthful, even you disagree with the choices the characters make/take. For every action there is a reaction following. A very strong movie, that does not have (easy) answers for some very hot topics/moral questions ...


That film has to be seen all over the world. It shows how in our globalized world the migration of people is perfectly organized and managed outside all legality with the accomplice-ship and cooperation of most governments or national services in the western countries concerned by these migrations. Here London, England. The volunteers (!?!) are essentially coming from the European Community (Poland) but also non members states from eastern Europe (Ukraine) and some countries going through a crisis like Iran and Iraq. The human beings are cattle as soon as they put their first toe in the system. They pay heftily for their passage first, just like the Jewish community had to pay for the passage of the Jews who were deported to Auschwitz. Then they will be exploited at two levels. First by the skyrocketing rents they pay for one fourth of a room or one fifth of a caravan. Second they will get some work every morning for the day and with no certitude of anything: no contract, no health insurance, no guaranteed payment of the miserable salary, no guaranteed schooling for the children. Everything is done outside any official declaration, evading taxes and all controls. And no serious service is doing anything to find out and bring things back in line. But the worst part is, though some men are behind this kind of slave market, the main flesh-eating character is a white woman, a false blonde, divorced with an 11 year old son abandoned to her own parents. She has a black associate who will finally drop out when the other trespasses beyond the narrow line between exploitation and slavery on one side and cattle- or even garbage-processing on the other. One day she will call immigration authorities to report a clandestine camp in order to get it emptied for her load of slaves that is arriving on the following morning. The black woman will be replaced and the whole forced-labor merry-go-round will start again and amplify its operation. The only advantage of being exploited by a woman is that young males will have to perform some personal service to the female slave-manager to get work on the following day. A film to be seen urgently. I was divinely surprised by the causticity of Ken Loach I was considering as slightly tamed before seeing this film. He can still bite, the old pit-bull.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines


A reasonably involving, decent drama, but obviously Ken Loach's main concern it to unable us to have a clearer idea of what is really going on with our 'brave new world', globalization, we all need to work harder to compete, people in China need to work harder, everyone needs to work harder, and out of this sinister scam, unending progress etc. there is still half a billion people on planet hearth who don't have enough to eat and a few people filling their pockets. What we get from the media is selective snippets of information and outright lies, while none of this bunch of mercenary hacks would even dream of questioning the soundness of the oligarchic plutocratic system we call democracy! So I guess Ken is right, we need educating! And what better way to do that that to show us how the whole thing works in practice, the smaller wheels, the larger ones, the cogs. The people traffickers in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, the people mercilessly exploiting illegal emigrants in this country. The protagonist is a working class, down-on- her-luck, single mother. She, together with her flatmate and friend, uses her previous working experience to create a small but profitable working agency for illegal emigrants. She is just a troubled person, she's worried about social services taking her son away. She thinks she deserves credit, because instead of living on the dole (welfare), she's trying to crate a business, to 'make something of herself'. Just another little well meaning cog then! The voice of reason is represented by her working class father, who, without being idealogical and in a down to earth way tries to explain to his daughter what it is really going on: 'entire country being deprived of their teachers and doctors coming to this country to work as plumbers and builders, the only people to profit from this scam is big business!' Keep educating us Ken, because we badly need it!


If I had a dollar for every time I walked out of a movie theater griping about how Hollywood has run out of ideas, I'd be a rich man. Lately I have been on a spiritual search if you will, to find some truly unique movies and Indie films seem to be the grail. Flatland was an impulse buy for me and I must say that this was the most unique movie experience I ever had. Nothing I'm aware of is more thought provoking for people who like discussing UFO's and Inter-dimensional travel. I can't think of a genre this film fits into. This is a thinking person's film and since I've seen it, I've been trying to explain to my cat what a solid is. I've also named her "Pea Brain". You can bet this film will get some serious looks from the big movie houses.


This independent film has everything to become a big hit... a solid storyline, driven from the book by the same name, that leaves you both amused and disturbed at times. A good soundtrack that leaves it's mark, but doesn't overpower the art and dialogs. Amusing characters that you can't help but sympathize with, and finally, beautiful artwork that has nothing to envy to Hollywood productions, as it doesn't distract your attention from the story itself.

Reading the book beforehand is not necessary, but will definitely help you catch on to the story faster, as you will not sit there wondering what's up with these wacky Flatlanders while an important part of the plot is revealed.

A must see! I highly recommend it.


Literally. Flatland by Edwin Abbott Abbott was a little gem of a book which could not be pigeon-holed into a specific genre over a hundred and fifty years ago and as a result ended up on Science Fiction shelves. Combining Geometry and Philosophy (and even Religion), it was an allegory on the human condition, describing a very rigidly-structured Society where square pegs aspired to fit through round holes.

The plot focuses on A. Square, who is led to a series of epiphanies on the Nature of Reality itself to the realization that not only is there an existence beyond his two-dimensional plane in the form of a 3-dimensional universe, but that further dimensions are implied. He learns that appearances are not necessarily all they seem.

Difficult to conceptualize in its reading, Llad Ehlinger, Jr. has managed to graphically express this evolution of the mind. Despite these worlds being populated exclusively by geometric shapes, we are drawn into the story and feel A. Square's transformation as though it were our own, which it hopes to be. Flatland itself is appropriately extremely two-dimensional, yet has endearing qualities. From our hero's perspective, he is at first confused, then exhilarated as he is lifted into the three-dimensional world. We are taken along for the dizzying ride. This is only the beginning for A. Square, who then postulates other worlds with both less and more dimensions. Ehlinger has a sequence which can only be an homage to 2001: A Space Odyssey as multi-dimensionality is explored.

As if this were not a big enough task to tackle, Ehlinger expands the storyline by applying some of the original concepts of Governments to their logical path to War. Flatland, both the book and the movie, can be appreciated at many levels. By adding an extra layer, Ehlinger has actually simplified the book.

I enjoyed this movie. It is mind-bending and thought-provoking, with a graphic element integral to its message. A potentially too-heavy treatise is lightened by very humorous details, such as the warbled battle cries of female lines in Flatland, who need to both sway and make noise at all times in order to be seen when not approached from their sides, so as not to pierce unobservant polygons! There is more than meets the eye to this unusual independently filmed and marketed movie. One viewing may not be enough.


Back when I was in the 6th grade my Dad gave me a copy of the book. I've read it 2 or 3 times over the years and always enjoyed it. I ordered your movie and recently watched it. I totally agree with the reviews you have received from Film Threat magazine and SciFi.com. You did an excellent job of updating the book to be more relevant for today's audience. The movie was incredible. I loved the character design, dialog, action, and music. Great job! The animation is engaging and completely different than the typical CGI films today. I would highly recommend this film to anyone. I wish you great success on this and future projects. I'm looking forward to your next one. Thanks and good luck!


For the Limited Edition DVD-R. This film was leagues more interesting that I expected it to be--my girlfriend REALLY wanted to see it, though.

Lay back, sort of sleepy, watch the film. Some early on-screen direction annoyed me but it didn't last far into the film.

I'm not familiar with the book, but this film is a helluva lot of fun and it brings about some great self-questioning about the perception of consensus reality.

The creativity expressed in the various worlds was quite amusing. And it's mostly a family film but there's some language kids might repeat the next day at school (and get in trouble) and there's some very strange violence :)

Well worth a shot, though.


flatland has always been a magic book for me, as math itself although I was never VERY good at it. My average ability as an engineer to comprehend the mysteries of both the world of science and the social sphere, were given a true boost with this magic allegory. I purchased the film two times so far, one for my husband and one for a friend, and each time I watched it it revealed something new. The animation, I find it superb and the storytelling brilliant. Just brilliant.

I only wish there were subtitles to it, as English is not my mother tongue and I struggled enormously at first with all these terms and the peculiar accents. I shall definitely jump to buy the subtitled edition too when it comes out! Not to mention I am truly looking forward to the sequel!!! Flatterland - my last summer reading I mean. How does this sound Sir Ladd?


I have to say, I love this film. I bought is as soon as the special release was available and my DVD is numbered #11! The detailed animation in this film is very impressive. The intricate inner workings of the Flatlanders blew me away. I mean with a bunch of characters on the screen you could see all of their eyes blink, hearts beat, etc. I was simply amazed at the level of detail. I never read the book but the story is really great. It really makes you wonder what's beyond our 3D world. My kids loved this film also. They keep asking if they can watch it again. It's really cool to see the different things the kids pick up on, and how they interpret the film. The film is deep on many levels. The music was spot on and fit each scene just right. I would highly recommend this film to anyone! I'd love to see this in the theater. FLATLAND THE FILM RULES!!!


This is what independent work is all about. The animation is beautiful, yet not like any animation you've seen. This is no slick rip-off of successful style with smarmy pop-culture references; no Disney/Pixar wannabes here. The director has a vision of his own and makes it happen. It's a very, very good adaptation of the Abbott novel, witty, with good voice-work and very good music. There are some mind-blowing sequences towards the end, but the most impressive quality is the originality of the vision.

If this is the director's first feature, there are big things in store for him. Don't lose that vision! A film like this gives me hope.


As a person that is interested in Math and when I heard about Flatland the Film I had to obtain a copy. The first time I watched Flatland the film I found it very interesting with great 3D animation. As I watched a second and third time I began to notice hidden things within the film, which must have been placed within the film on purpose, and I did not notice them the first time I watched. In addition, every time I watch it the question comes to mind how many things did you guys hide in this film and is it your trademark??? I found the film was very true to the book and have recommended this Film to many and the response has been great. We have planned some viewing parties to see if we can find more hidden things. This film is great keep up the good work. When is your next film coming out and what is will be hidden in it?


It basically is a teaching play about this two-dimensional world. How it functions physically, which teaches about physics. How its society works, which is a satirical parable of our own society, of course. And then there is a little science fiction, mathematics, philosophy and somewhat TRON-ish fantasy.

About half-way into the film a 3D character appears in Flatland. He tries to explain the movie's star, "A Square" (That's his name. He's the brother of "B Square"), that there is a dimension beyond him. But since it is hard to explain the 3rd dimension to "A Square" the 2D character and the audience are transported into the 3rd dimension inhabited by spheres, cubes etc. It happens what has to happen: "A Square" concludes that when there is a dimension beyond his there must also be a dimension beyond the 3rd one. A theory which the 3D character can only laugh about...

The approach is rather comedic, but the film is hardly kids stuff. A noteworthy stylistic decision is the unusual narrative. Instead of a voice-over it constantly switches to inter titles just like in a silent picture. At least during the first half when the audience needs to get a grasp on the basics of the two-dimensional universe. It gives the film an odd pacing but it worked quite well for me, simply because it's a fresh approach. The animation is crude, which becomes especially evident when the film switches into the 3rd dimension (Spaceland). But as simply animated as it might be it was done with a lot of attention to detail and most importantly the world that was created is a consistent and functional one.

It gives a very good understanding of the several dimensions and how it might be if a living entity could exist within only two dimensions. It's comprehensible, but not oversimplified. One purpose of the film, of course, is to make you think about the fourth dimension - what it could be like, the possibilities, and even how certain unexplained phenomena in the world might be explainable with the existence of another dimension. It is a Sci-Fi film that is all about ideas. A welcome departure from the special effects extravaganza that Sci-Fi is usually associated with. More theoretical than most Sci-Fi films, but not as purely theoretical as it might sound from my descriptions. There is plenty of fun to be had as well.

The film is based on a genre-grossing novel written in the 19th century, which you may or may not know. It's said to be popular amongst mathematics, physicists and computer science students. Another adaption of this novel has been made in the same year, a 34-minute short called Flatland: The Movie which appears to be targeted towards a younger audience.

If you find the basic premise even only mildly intriguing then this is a highly recommended watch.


This review covers both versions of "Flatland" released in 2007, one by Ladd Ehlinger, Jr. with a mostly unknown voice cast, and the other by Jeffrey Travis with some Hollywood big names providing the voices.

The source material for both is the 1884 novella by Edwin A. Abbott, but the approaches of the two films differ radically. The book is a staple of science fiction, and one of the few to address mathematical issues at its core. Being a product of its time, the book is technically naive, and politically incorrect based on current sensibilities.

The Travis film is visually slicker, but significantly shorter, and tackles philosophical issues relative to the passage of time from initial publication. As such, it tampers with the plot to mixed effect. Unlike some others, I have no problem with some of the revisions to the underlying plot since they do help bring some of the book's major issues into somewhat sharper focus. On the other hand, they also add a "feel good" and politically correct sensibility that seems out of place.

The Ehlinger film is much truer to its source material, which is both a strength and a weakness. Given a current perspective, its 19th century depiction of the political and social subjugation of women is a distraction that the Travis film avoids. It's also a longer film and could have been more effective with some of the same plot and editing license employed in the Travis film. Where it does tamper with the plot, some of the decisions are questionable as other reviewers have pointed out.

So which is better? In my opinion, the short answer is the Ehlinger film. Despite its length, political incorrectness, and technical inferiority (the animation of the Travis film is much more sophisticated), it resonates at a technical level to a degree that the Travis film can't match. As a scientist, this means a lot to me. On the other hand, the Travis film resonates on an emotional level that the Ehlinger film can't match. So the answer may be whether you're looking for technical insight or emotional satisfaction.

Most jarring in the Travis film is that, unlike the Ehlinger film, the animators never quite caught on to the implications of a two-dimensional universe. It is filled with objects which are instantly recognizable to us, yet would be clearly impossible or meaningless in the film's reality (e.g. the protagonist's daughter has toys which only make sense to someone with a 3-D perspective, and how does he open his briefcase?). The cover art is an obvious first impression example. The Travis film's characters look more human, but ask yourself how their eyes work. One detail of the book is that looking at a Flatlander from above, all of his internal organs are clearly visible, as they should be. Travis' animators hint at this, but don't meet it head-on. The Ehlinger film's animators may not have had the resources to make as slick a film as Travis', but they obviously gave a great deal of thought to what they were doing (or maybe not, since the necessary designs were all in the book). In short, Travis had the budget, but Ehlinger had the passion for the project - albeit perhaps a bit too much respect for the source to create a truly superior adaptation.

The differences reflect different target audiences, though. The Travis film is an educational short film which was obviously meant to be viewed by classrooms of middle school and high school students. As such, it had to be socially inoffensive while conveying concepts of geometry that would never occur to non-mathematicians. That it includes recognizable names voicing the characters will help it grab a bit more attention - an educational short film for the "X-Files" generation. The Ehlinger film would mostly appeal to people with a college level interest in mathematics, or others who are already familiar with the book.

Neither film is perfect, but I'm giving the Ehlinger film a rating of 8 and the Travis film a rating of 6. Depending on your sensibilities, your conclusion may be exactly opposite of mine, so I hope this review includes enough information to guide you to an informed selection.

Or, like me, you could simply buy both... ;-)


I had not read the book that this was based on. There was even a sense that this would be a waste of time.

I realized I was very wrong. As others have mentioned in their comments: this is no Hollywood canon fodder intended for the spoon-fed masses.

Some interest in mathematics or science is not essential but more than likely contributes to ones viewing of the film.

I found the story very thoughtful and entertaining at the same time. The film is well executed and easy to watch.

(Two dimensional characters do not have facial Tiks - just my thoughts)


There's not much I can say about this work of art, but I admire the depth and complexity of the film. There's so much information and logic throughout, I almost felt as though I had gained knowledge by watching it.

I'll put it simply.

It's about a character, known simply as A Square, who lives in a 2 Dimensional world known only as Flatland. Why? Well, because it's flat of course. All the people are squares, circles, hexagons, etc... but all of them are equally as flat as the other. They have no idea of 3 Dimensional space. That is, until A Sphere appears from Spaceland and takes A Square on a whirlwind journey of discovery and intrigue where he learns all about the 3rd dimension and his own purpose in life.

It's all rather confusing and irregular in it's general presentation, but it's also one of the best animated films I've seen in a long time. I'm left with a distinct feeling of wonder and deep thought that I've not experienced in years. It feels amazing. So overall, it's an excellent film that I highly recommend.


This is a great film with a lot of strong philosophy weaved in, I'm not surprised to find that there is a great book behind this film. The central plot for the film is a 2D world and two factions within it. Right from the start of the film you are bombarded with parallels to reality and its hard not to get distracted by your own thought chain, in a good way :) The CGI is as good as it needs to be to tell this story, the yellow sphere that you'll have seen if you've read this far is a bit misleading - the film has its own unique style that extends further than such basic geometry and reflections. The actors voice overs are quite good, the film isn't amateur and there is a lot of narration to help the story along.

My main criticism of the film would be an excess of narration - sometimes its useful but other times its downright patronising and by the end you end up sighing every time you see narration.


This movie is a great portrayal of the Abbott book. The graphics are very well done and shows what can be done today with some determination and a home computer. I think someone who didn't understand the concepts of the universe and how our perception of dimensions controls what we believe will have their eyes opened to the possibilities raised if dimensions we don't know about exist.

The weaknesses I see in this film were in the one-dimensional voices. There was little emotion and passion. It sounded like something I would hear in an elementary school production. Some of the transitions between scenes seemed awkward and occasionally it was unclear exactly what was supposed to be happening, though I find many films based on books have this problem.

All in all the movie is a success. I highly recommend it as an entertaining and educational experience and a nice change from the standard Hollywood fare.


Flatland is one of my favorite books, thus I was looking forward to this film. Unfortunately, the film is absolutely horrible. The dialog is so bad it sounds like improv half the time. The new storyline makes me think they took the book and a couple of newspapers, threw them in a blender and used what came out for the screenplay. It's a disgrace to the book and independent film making. The only reason I even managed to get all the way through the film was my hopes that it'd get better. Unfortunately, it only got worse, climaxing in a really retarded ending.

That's not to say EVERYTHING about the movie is bad. The CG is acceptable, in a 1990's "Reboot" sort of way which I assume is what they were going for. And I suppose you can't go wrong with "people" getting chopped in half and gushing blood all over the place.


I just came from an advance screening of Astroboy where I dutifully took my kids at 10 am to watch "this" thinking that if I was lucky I would be able to doze off for a few minutes during the movie. Boy, I couldn't! The story was captivating from the beginning. Yes, it was very directed at kids, you know, the far off humour and such, but when I saw Toby, the genius' "kid", I felt that the movie was after all NOT just a Pinocchio rip-off where an old man made a robot-boy because he was bored or lonely... the reasons behind the creation of Astroboy were tragic and even mature. Of course, if you are a manga aficionado, you may be thinking "duh! that's how's supposed to be", but I am NOT. I barely watched a show now and then when I was a kid (I'm 36 years old... too young for Astroboy), so I wasn't really aware of the story. So I thought, well, this development has to be a fluke inherited from the original story, from then on it should go downhill... but it did NOT. The story is full of tragedy, though decisions that if you think them through you can even understand (like a father understanding that memories cannot truly replace his son), and redemption that may be obvious to superheroes experts, but are very well exposed to a new generation of kids that will witness a clear fight between good and evil (positive and negative forces) adorned with an excellent and adequate portion of comedy. Not just a kid's movie, but a movie that I will surely watch again when my kids "force" me to buy it and to watch it with them dozens of times. Go, Astro!


Unlike many of the other reviews(it seems), I don't have an ax to grind. I vaguely remembered the character and actually thought it was a French cartoon. If it was on TV, I never saw it.

As such, my expectations were fairly plebeian - just a family film with good production values and some entertainment value. Well, Astroboy IS well produced and IS very entertaining. There was plenty of comedy to keep the film light and lots of action to keep things moving.

I might agree with those who think the portrayal of Toby's(Astroboy's) father was rather cold. However, it fits with the sequence of events and one assumes that the producers were following the original story (I'm not going to read the comic book to find out).

There are many endearing characters in the film and interesting villains to boot. The animation varied from good to excellent and the pacing avoided any significant lulls. All in all, well and cleverly done. Good job, Imagi, and all the talented people who contributed.

I recommend this to anyone who wants some light-hearted entertainment. My family loved it.


I never expected to see some high-art film when I saw the trailer for the movie. It's Astro Boy, the kid fighting evil aliens or robots on Saturday mornings. I expect it to be just a movie about a young super kid fighting.. well.. robots and aliens.

So when I walked into the movie I was pleasantly surprised that there are more than fighting in the movie. I was touched in many places where the father (Dr. Tenma) and son (Toby/ Astro)'s bittersweet relationship is shown. The acting is GREAT! Both by the actors (Nicholas Cage, Donald Sutherland, Nathan Lane, they're all great) and by the animators in Hong Kong.

There are also many funny moments, although not enough time was given to laugh at them. I wish the pacing was a bit slower at the start of the movie (but I read many people were bored at the start of the movie). Well.. the problem is that they need to zip in all the story about the beginning of Astroboy, in about 15-20 minutes time.

I love the little robots like Trash Can and the RRF. They are such relief makers in the movie. Most of the funny moments came from them.

I read reviews about certain political agendas etc, in the movie. But i disagree. Those statements are only made to support the story, and shouldn't be looked at with too much thought. Remember this is a kid's movie, and should be taken lightly as an entertainment source, don't think too much about it.

I don't really get why the box office for this movie is so bad. I mean, this is WAY BETTER THAN Bee Movie, or Space Chimps, or Open Season 2... SERIOUSLY. It deserves better.

I went to see this movie on a Saturday and there were a lot of parents with kids in the cinema. When the movie finished the kids were happy and thrilled and said "That was awesome!" Take your kids to this movie. They'll love it.


Before going to see Astro Boy I decided to read some of the comments that were posted here. I read reviews by some who liked the movie as well as by some who did not like the movie. With an average score of 6.4 I went to see the movie with relatively low expectations although I got the feeling that those who did not like the movie were mostly upset about the movie not being "true" to the original TV series and were having some issues with certain characters reminding them of other characters such as Pinocchio. Well, I did not see the original TV series so I did not care whether or not the movie and the TV series were similar enough. I also did not mind that some of the side kicks may have had some resemblance to characters from other movies. The bottom line is that my 5.5 year old and I loved Astro Boy!


The first fifteen minutes of its dialogue was groan-inducing...this, combined with Nic Cage's droning voice is enough to turn the viewer off quickly.

Fortunately, you can't judge this one by its opening act. As soon as Astro leaves Metro City, the film really picks up. This is surprisingly intelligent, fun, nostalgic and engaging.

The film manages to canvass some rather complex ideas regarding robotics, which really raise the quality of the story to a higher level. Characters have some shades of grey which are much appreciated.

The animation is strong, though it is a little too Western in appearance at times, and it would have been nice to see a bit more anime style.

Unfortunately, the lack of the classic music theme does leave a gaping hole.


For some reason my expectations were not high for this movie, the IMDb rating was pretty average and there was not much hype surrounding it's release. It seems any computer animated movie that is neither Pixar nor Shrek has a difficult time getting noticed. Having seen this movie now I can whole heartedly say that this movie is as fun and action packed as any movie from the Pixar stable.

The visuals are excellent and on a par with the latest computer generated movies, the story is heart warming and touches on philosophical themes often related to more adult titles like Blade Runner or even Ghost in the Shell, the action is well handled and true to the cartoon origins of the title and ultimately there is enough depth and charm in this movie to satisfy both kids and adults. The only drawback I feel this movie has is the somewhat out of place voice acting of some of the main characters, it seems that the producers wanted the film to be attached to some big name actors rather then finding voice actors that would suit the specific characters,specifically I felt that Bill Nighy voice was out of place as the Professor and perhaps Nic Cage could have brought more energy to the role. It did feel as though the voice work was done after visuals and not vice versa which led to a somewhat flat performance by some actors. That, however is just me being ultra critical, overall this is a top draw movie and worth a look. Give it a try.


This was a really good movie. I really enjoyed this. Granted I'm not a fan of Astro Boy, but I still enjoyed this film. The voice actors delivered great performances. Nathan Lane was brilliant as Ham Egg, as was Kristen Bell as Cora. Freddie Highmore did great as Astro, and as much as everyone groans whenever Nicolas Cage is mentioned, he did a wonderful job as Dr. Tenma. The action in this film was great. I was never bored during the film. It had a lot of great stuff, and some funny moments. It's a great animated film that delivers on action, great performances and awesome sequences. I had a great time with Astro Boy. I hope it does for you too.


Well that was probably the idea when Japan created the character back in the 50's. The character keeps getting brought through the 60's to the 80's, and now it's 2009.

Set in the future, a scientist(voiced by Nicolas Cage) is drowning in sadness, cause he lost his son(voiced by Freddie Highmore) in a laboratory accident, almost a year later he builds a robotic replica of his son(also Freddie Highmore). But when he turns out to smart for his own, The scientists starts to feel guilty for trying to play god, and demands he be taking away. But the boy discovers he is not quite like other boys. He hears what they said, and he quickly runs away. And tries to get used to being a robot, during that he comes some outcast kids at a junk yard, he soon becomes apart of there family, but does not tell them he's a robot, cause he doesn't want to feel like a freak. He also gets the name Astro. But what happens when an evil pollition(voiced by Donald Sutherland) slowly closes in on him?

Awesome animation, since The Incredibles and Meet the Robinsons. And such great actors doing awesome voice over. Astro Boy is really a must see for kids and adults.


ASTRO BOY is a full-length CGI animated American adaptation of the massively-popular Japanese manga (comic book) and television series fictional character of the same name ASTRO BOY, created by Ozamu Tezuka, who is considered as "the God of Manga". Its manga series was first published in 1952 and its television program first broadcast in Japan in 1963.

Basically the storyline of Astro Boy is a sort of futuristic version of Pinocchio, but is extended by story lines of action, adventure, and pure sci-fi. Astro Boy is a robot boy, who initially has gone through an identity crisis, but later on, serves as more of a superhero who gets into various adventures and is consistently bent on promoting peace in his society wherein robots live side-by-side human beings.

Arguably, Astro Boy is the quintessential children's action hero because he is an ideal mix of pure innocence, a loving heart, and an explosive little dynamite when the going gets tough. Although he shoots lasers, and has weapon turrets from his butt, he is always doing his best to resolve things with a more friendlier approach, and always has that cute optimism that even the darkest of villains may possibly be persuaded do good things instead.

This recent Astro Boy movie is indeed, in my opinion, a good way of reintroducing Astro Boy to a younger generation. Spectacular and fun-filled, the movie is never a waste of time. The eye candy aspect is high; it almost reaches the level of Pixar quality. The action is moderately impressive, on the other hand, it has the best "I can fly" sequence (I'm talking about that sequence when the main character discovers he can fly or do superhuman things and goes out in a self-indulging fun trip) and is superior in comparison to those in movies like Spider-man, Superman and Iron Man. It may be just animation but when Astro Boy is having fun in the sky, his joy radiates unto the audience.

Although this is not all comedy from start to finish, the humor was enough to make the movie enjoyable. There are only a few punchlines placed here and there, but no matter how few they are, they pack a punch of solid laughter. I was really amused at the three robots that referred to themselves as the Robot Liberation Front. They were probably my favorite characters in this entire movie. From their quirkily hilarious character designs up to the overall portrayal of these robots, they easily got me tickled pink.

While voice actors Freddie Highmore as Astro Boy and the rest of the voice cast such as Kristen Bell, Bill Nighy, Donald Sutherland, Nathan Lane, and Eugene Levy were all generically good, it was Nicholas Cage, voicing Dr. Tenma, Astro boy's father, whose voice acting complemented excellently with the animation. It was as if it captured Cage in one of his best acting moments. It would not have been easy to bring the character of Tenma to a full-length movie version without altering it. In the original manga (Japanese comics) version and in the TV series, Tenma is portrayed as more brutal and has certainly a darker character, as he deliberately abandons and sells Astro boy, and in one other interpretation, he goes insane. The Tenma portrayed in this new movie version is a more positive version, as he is still bound by love for his creation, Astro Boy. Inevitably and obviously you expect this Tenma to do the morally upright thing.

The storyline aspect was pretty solid. Simplistic to be family-friendly, yet it has some plot and characterization elements that appeal to adults as well. It ends up as a movie that is both young at heart yet mature in content. Enjoyable for kids, interesting for adults. The story does not treat its audiences like idiots, and manages to tell the story without applying unnecessary restraint that can hinder a writer's creativity. In addition, the writers and the rest of the crew have an enormous pressure to make this project become perfect. That is because Astro Boy is like a national figure in Japan, as much as how Mickey Mouse is towards Americans. And in my opinion, the Americans did deliver a good script for him.

Inevitably, the movie keeps itself faithful with the source material on Astro Boy's origins but there are indeed many little alterations made in order to update this Astro Boy as being this generation's version. Rife with enough heart, humor, and spectacular explosive action, this movie has a storyline that easily pleases its audience. It is indeed worth your time & your money if you are looking for a family-friendly movie this week.


This is my first written movie review ever.

I never heard about Astro Boy before today. I decided to go ahead and watch it based on IMDb grade. And only thing left after seeing it was a wish to warn others not to see it. Except if your a kid up to...let's be generous... 9 years old.

Characters are one dimensional and stereotypical, plot is just plain stupid and unimaginative and at (lots of) times doesn't make much sense. Only mildly interesting characters were the RRF robots. Didn't get the point when President is still speaking of reelection after being absorbed by a giant robot destroying city.

You were warned.


I never read or watched the original Astro Boy but I hope its better than this astrological unlikeable and generic CGI movie. Overall, the movie felt forced: so much happens in this hour and a half movie that there is no time to develop anything or even the hundreds of moral themes the movie throws at the audience (law of robotics, being human, finding where you belong).

Oddly enough, the movie has a weird good guy/bad guy bipolar disorder where characters turn from being a good guy to a bad guy back to a good guy in a matter of minutes. Case in point: the second act builds heavily on Ham Egg being portrayed as a replacement fatherly figure and an all around good guy but all of a sudden, he turns on Astro Boy with no justification since his introduction.

Animation wise, I thought the movie had no real distinct style and it felt like I was watching Robots but I found it odd that character design of Astro Boy looked completely different from all the other characters. He still had the anime look with big eyes yet the other characters looked like generic cgi characters.

It's a shame because I wanted this movie to be better. In the end, Astro Boy is completely forgettable.


Astro Boy

One of the few advantages of having a robot child, as opposed to a human one, is that it can process the concept of divorce faster and with less emotional scarring.

Fortunately, the little boy in this computer-animated adventure doesn't have to worry about parental separation, because he's dead.

When his son Toby (Freddy Highmore) is accidentally killed by a military robot powered by malevolent red energy, Dr. Tenma (Nicholas Cage) re-creates him in a robot form, powered by benevolent blue energy.

But when the military becomes interested in his circuitry, Toby must hideout in the old city, where robots participant in gladiatorial games.

Based on the Japanese anime, Astro Boy falls far short of its Asian influence: the character designs are flawed, the voice acting is patchy and the story is unexciting.

What's more, uptight North American movie makers didn't even bother selling Astro Boy's used underwear in vending machines.


This film is about a top robot scientist, who copes with his sons death by building a high tech robot to replace his son.

I find "Astro Boy" very well made. It has got an engaging and exciting plot with plenty of action. There are also plenty of emotional elements to touch people's hearts. The leading character, Toby, is well portrayed. he is such a good boy with a sad background. It is easy to sympathise with his situation, making viewers connect with him and hence be engaged by the story. Visuals are great as the sets are vibrantly composed, making every scene a joy to watch. "Astro Boy" is a fun film to watch. Both kids and adults will all be entertained by it!


I don't know who said they thought this was a Rip-Off of Pinnochio but it isn't and never was. I don't know why people insist on taking movies and trying to find other movies "they ripped off". For me as a kid it was one of my favorites and every time my 11 year old grandson comes over we watch one of the old B&W episodes I have on DVD. I took him to the theatre to see this just me and him and we were both like a couple of kids.(I'm 55) I'm not going to spoil it for anyone that has not seen it but I believe it is a great family movie, or at least one you can let your child watch without supervision. I enjoyed it a lot. My Grandson looks forward to our weekly viewings now with his Grandpa. As a long time ASTROBOY Fan I wish we could figure out if it is one word or two ? All my old stuff the ASTROBOY runs together. Anyway I believe this is a fun entertaining movie and not for all, but give it a try for your kids and grandkids. I think they will enjoy it.


This tackles animation in a different way from a lot of the past recent animated films.

It is a beautifully crafted piece with a great and crisp finish to the feel, movement and enjoyment of the film.

Touching in places with good characters. More of a serious cartoon with fewer laughs than found in typical animated films.

It is a good light introduction to Manga although there are many types of Manga animation styles. This is built up using a multitude of emotions, felt by all the main characters and filtering a few layers down giving it a very real world feel despite it being shown in the future.

It is not hard to imagine this almost being a real possibility for the future. However, you can still feel the fantasy of it. With that you can draw between the lines and see how this could have been done on the flip side, turning it into a bright, fun, funny and cutesy too feel good extended cartoon.

Good for all ages and fans of animation. A big screen treat. I will am very much looking forward to the BluRay release.


Now I wouldn't say this movie beat my expectations, but it fit my expectations quite nicely. The beginning to this movie was captivating, but after a while it starts to lose it's flair. However Astro Boy's flight and fight sequences were actually well done and was fun to watch. I just really wished this movie was in 3D and it would have been one heck of a thrill ride, after finishing this movie it felt like it was made to be 3D which was a disappointment cause it was not...Bummer, oh well maybe in part 2 or part 3 where they might title it "Astro Boy 3D". But since this movie has a lot of action in it, Kids will most likely have a blast and adults will probably enjoy it. But it's just generic, which is fine but the outcome in every scene felt a bit flat because of it, like if you seen the trailer you will probably get the whole story down, but some of the sequences while being predictable was cool to watch, so it's sort of forgivable. The animation seemed a bit weak even if it's based on a science fiction anime, but the musical score was awesome to listen to while Astro Boy does his thing. I have no ideas why they would get some expensive actors and actresses to do the voice overs, when they could have gotten legit voice actors/actresses for less money and spend more on the animation of "Astro Boy". The movie had it's moments but as a whole, it was not that satisfying when it was finished. It was good effort but had the potential to be much more.

7/10


What the hell happened?!! Imagi's work is top notch but what happened to the story? the origin is ALL wrong and there are barely any characters from the manga or TV show in it. I've just recently read the astroboy manga's and I see none of Tezuka's genius it this film, what waste!

where was Atlus? Pook? Inspector Tawashi? or Deadcross? who btw would have made a better villain. I don't mind re-imagining something but the idea is to make it better not worse!!

In truth I figured it would head this way when I read the director had no clue about Astro before he started production. It would have been nice if he had at least watched one of the TV series. Movies like iron and and spider-man did well cuz all the basic's that made the character popular all these years were retained.

Folks seem to like this film but then I've heard that IQ's have been dropping so that might say something as well. I am also sad cuz I want Imagi to do well, I like their company mission statement.


When I had first heard about this movie around about last summer, I was pretty excited to see it, even if people were saying it was a waste of time, I still had to see it because I knew it was based on an actual anime/manga series long ago, and because I'm so heavily into that sort of stuff it was definitely something I was going to see and believe, I walked out of the cinema smiling because I felt really happy and cheerful and I knew it was because of that movie.

It's such a brilliant mix of everything, personally I don't think there's anything wrong with it, I know I'm probably too old to like that sort of stuff but I watch anything me if the trailer looks good, I'm more into CGI/animation movies, there's soo much more that they can do compared to live-action and if Astro Boy had been live-action then it wouldn't have been as good because they wouldn't have been able to accomplish half the stuff they did in the CGI version, hell I don't even know how they managed with the live-action series back then :S But seriously, if this is your kind of movie, don't listen to what the bad reviews are telling you, experience it for yourself and just watch it, because it is a really fun/thrilling movie that can really make you smile, just as it did with me :)

Another good thing is that they haven't changed anything too drastically, normally when a movie is adapted from TV or a book they tend to change it, sometimes too much but I feel that they have changed it only slightly so that it appeals greater to our modern ages, the great thing though is that Astro is the same.. you know, same name, look, even the undies... but at least he's wearing clothes.. well up until the end... ha ha :D Although I'm not really sure what to think about the new characters apart from the RRF who are just hilarious, but I guess some of the others resemble or remind me of the old ones but the one in particular is Cora, who is mean't to be seen as a potential love interest for Astro (I think...) is just not needed really, I mean she's probably there just to fill up the space, I don't think there's an actual reason, I mean I can't see them getting together and stuff... but maybe that's just me.

And to finish off, I have some idea my review is just pathetic and just goes on about how 'great' the movie is.. when it actually is, but I just don't want anyone to get the wrong idea, it has so much in common with the original series that you wouldn't believe, it's rare nowadays that new animation movies have any background history (meaning any cartoons made and shown on TV before the movie) or even anything in common with its previous shows, so it's pretty good to see something like this come out, makes me happy to be the age I am now because when I was young CGI animation just wasn't this good... and that says something cause I'm only 17 ^^ And even if you have never heard of or even watched the original series it doesn't matter because the movie practically starts from scratch anyway if you know what I mean ;) So yeah, enjoy the movie (:


This movie tells Astroboy's origin story. In the floating Metro City, young Toby's scientist father (Nicolas Cage) is responsible for a scientific accident in which Toby is killed. Overcome by remorse, he creates a robot duplicate into which he transfers Toby's memories (as well as rocket powered flight and assorted weaponry), but then finds himself unable to accept the substitute because he is a robot. Robot Toby finds friends among orphaned children and robots down on the ground before he has to fight the robotised President Stone (Donald Sutherland) who wants the blue power source used to activate Toby (now called Astro). Mayhem ensues.

There is a lot of good stuff here. CGI suits the anime look, the story is sound and exciting, there's quite a lot of funny stuff and some excellent action, and the voice talent is great.

There is an interesting and effective subtext about prejudice and exclusion - it isn't used to beat you about the ears with, but should register on an unconscious level.

I was somewhat askance that the movie starts off in such a downbeat fashion, with the death - no bones about it, he's completely dead, blasted to smithereens in fact - of the original human Toby. I'm still not too sure of the impact that is likely to have on youngsters, but maybe that says more about me as a Dad than it does about kids, because those in the cinema seemed to enjoy it.


I enjoy this film to my own surprise.While I'm not a child or a fan,I find the animation simple and easy on the eyes.You feel sorry for him when his own father can't look at him the same way now that he's a robot.After he leaves Metro City, he finds his human friends and through them,he gets to find and learn about love and companionship.Then he takes on the evil President Stone,who has become a huge monster himself,threatens to destroy Metro City and everyone else in it.My brother claps in delight as Astro Boy discovers his hands can turn into cannons and guns stick out of his butts.The touching scene where he sacrifices his life is enough to even brought a tear to my eyes.Luckily,he is saved and finally finds his destiny,and it's to help protects the world.It's a movie with a lot of heart and hope.Definitely a kid's film.For an adult,the cartoon characters may be a little childish.Overall it's a great animated film,good efforts on the voice overs and entertaining awesome sequences.


This movie was my choice for the kid's afternoon but the both of us regretted it afterward. I admit that I have dozed off watching it, which is maybe the first time it happens for me in a theater! This isn't a bad movie because you could find worse. Surely, the design is outstanding and the characters show their feelings as never before but they can't make a movie by themselves. Nevertheless, it's dull because it lacks a story. After a good start, it becomes a wrestle event with endless fights! With robots becoming berserk, it reminds me of the much-criticized Robocop 2, which offers a better script and thoughts than this one.


A movie all the kids can see while the parents won't be bored. Values like responsibility, friendship, and honor are the main themes here. Bonus is action, humor, and excellent animation style. Set in the future a bright young boy (Toby) dies in an accident and his grieving father (Dr. Tenma) replaces him with the most modern robot (Astro) there is, complete with the memories and feelings of Toby. Tenma then rejects Astro and Astro is attacked by the military. He escapes, meets friends, learns what it's like to "fit in" and when the time comes he must make the "ultimate sacrifice" in order to save the people whom he loves. I enjoyed the plot and the characters were not just stereotypical personalities but real enough to draw you into the story. I brought my daughter and one of her friends. They also liked it.


(Contains some Christian perspective. I sincerely have no intention to offend non-Christians and I'm really sorry if I would offend someone.) It was winter of 1961, a time when the streets of America was covered in a blanket of snow. On January 20 that year, a man who may have been the most popular president in the nation made his way on top of the platform. For the next fourteen minutes, he delivered an inaugural address that is still honored to this very day. At the end of that speech, he made this comment: "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." That president, was John F. Kennedy.

I loved that line, until I realized that there's something more we can do to augment that passage. If I would rephrase that line today, I might as well say, "Ask not what your country can do for you - neither ask what you can do for your country - but ask what you and your country, or better, you and the whole world, can do together." Astroboy was a showcase for thinkers. As for me who has been dealing with morality for all I know, find this movie among the most amazing I've ever watched. Some may not care about slavery, power trip, or life's purpose... but I do... and it's my passion.

I sat down the theater expecting little from this movie as people have given it negative remarks. Yet at the end of the show, I was perhaps the most ecstatic who walked out of the big screen.

The animations were great. The voice actors? Just wow! And the sounds? Wonderful. These however, are less concerns for me. For what made me love Astroboy the way it is weren't these although they have obviously contributed somehow. What I loved about Astroboy is the philosophy tied to it mainly: Slavery, Power, and Purpose.

On Slavery, One may not have to think too deep to see how humans in the movie treated the robots. Hasn't it been an issue that the world is trying to wrestle? the fact is that it was, and still is. To treat slaves as nothing more than mindless creation built for the service of the greater is to make a mockery of the sanctity of life. I can see it through the eyes of the makers because we have house-helps here... and I would say that sometimes, they weren't treated as they are supposed to be. We must never forget that any time we discriminate someone because of their race, social status, culture, economic status, or even gender, is an insult to humankind. I can see the robots here that portrays the feelings of the servants who are simply thrown out when they are no longer needed. There was a scene (SPOILER ALERT) in the movie where Astro had a conversation with one of the Robots in a sea of scrap metals called the Surface. "This is what happens to us when they don't need us anymore," shares the robot, who looked like a mechanical zombie. This is saddening as I look at street children abandoned by their parents and old grandparents abandoned by those whom they once had taken care of. Perhaps, this could help us, not open our eyes, but more so, to lift our entire body for action.

On Power, Albeit comically, this has done a great job in portraying the some presidents of the world today. As bad as it may sound, President Stone had been on his own trip for power, bypassing moral judgments with his own ambition to power... and even when his ratings plunges all time low, insisted on maintaining his throne through extra-constitutional means. I've once heard of the saying, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." He who cannot handle power, deserves no right to hold it. The movie portrays what happens when a power monger goes on a power trip and those in position turns a blind eye. Again, this hopefully, can help us move one step forward in an action to keep the sanity of our leaders in check.

On Life's Purpose, Astroboy definitely had a one liner that made me love the whole thing. (SPOILER ALERT) At the end of the movie, a monster suddenly appears that threatens the life of many. Astroboy looked at his dad and prepares to battle the villain. His father asked him, "Son, are you sure you want to do this?" Astroboy, without batting an eyelid, smiled at his dad saying, "Yes dad, this is what I was made for." and flies away.

"This is what I was made for." In regular terms, this doesn't mean a thing. For Christians, this means the whole world. Any Christian who's been serving in the ministry will tell you that those seven words mean so much. Ephesians 2:10 seems to sum it all up. It says, "For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." This is what we are made for. Let's not forget that God has planted a longing for every person to do the right thing because that's exactly what gives life its direction. Every time you do good, you move forward in life. This is what God has made us for. My friends, let us not forget our mission here. This is our purpose.

___

Conclusion? I love it. I love Astroboy and if there's one movie that I wanna watch again, there's no doubt, this is the one. I've never made such an extensive review of a film. This just shows how much I loved it. People won't appreciate Astroboy if they are not action oriented and philosophically driven. But if you look for the things you can learn after seeing the movie, Astroboy is one thing you're gonna enjoy.


I think the animated series Astro Boy is more reminded because of ts cultural meaning than for its intrinsic attributes, because it was the first "anime" which found popularity outside of its natal Japan.Personally, I have never seen that series, so I went with zero expectations to see its film adaptation.However, the movie ended up being a boring, bland and cloying clothing which combines elements from A.I., Wall-E and Peter Pan.

This film has a lot of clichés and pre-fabricated characters.Besides, there are too many irrelevant sub-plots which distract the attention from the story.The only positive point I found in here is that the voice cast (composed by Freddie Highmore, Nicolas Cage, Samuel L. Jackson, Charlize Theron, Kristen Bell, Donald Sutherland, Bill Nighy and Eugene Levy) makes a functional work.

Astro Boy is another horrible animation film from Hollywood, which is truly boring and irritating, at the same time it lacks of any creativity.I suggest you to avoid it.


Unike its titular child android, "Astro Boy"'s oh-so earnest zing is somewhat attenuated by the lack of a definitive soul to make it stand out. Which isn't to say that David Bowers' 3-D animated sci-fi is a screwed-up experience -- thanks largely to its amusing one-liners and side characters -- but its theme of a boy trying to fit in among those who are different from him fail to stand up to the likes of, say, "Pinocchio," and "Iron Giant."

In the lustrously hi-tech Metro, a city floating above piles and piles of metal scraps, humans are served by robots that are guided by the late Isaac Asimov's robotic laws. Metro resident Toby (voiced by Freddie Highmore) is seeking to follow in the footsteps of his father, Dr. Tenma (Nicolas Cage), who created most of the city's machines. However, an accident that leads to Toby's death prompts the sorrowing dad to create a robot in Toby's image in a bid to replace his son. Astro, as the mechanical Toby eventually becomes known, is shattered after Dr. Tenma rejects him for not being able to live up to his human counterpart, and realizing that he's not who he thinks he is, Astro leaves the Metro in search of a place where he feels he'll belong.

Bowers' cinematic translation of a 1951 manga by Osamu Tezuka is an uneven -- albeit beaming -- trip, typified by the likes of Cage and Bill Nighy who sound bored, even if Donald Sutherland and Kristen Bell feel game for their roles. But it succeeds in creating an allegory on the rift between different classes, even if they are frustratingly glossed over in service of a predictable story and a few humdrum action. Despite its shortcomings, "Astro Boy" still proves humorously compelling when its hero spreads kindness courtesy of his cant-do-bad heart.


I had decent hopes going in. The movie was a tribute to a legend of cinema, especially in Japan. The cast was at least an 8 out of 10 for star power. Animation looked solid and well-toned. The plucky action-girl cliché character was mildly cute. How could they really screw it up, yeah?

Sadly, the movie failed to deliver. And yes, up front, I know that as a 25 year-old I'm too young to have loved the classic and too old to be the target audience, but I haven't felt this alienated by a film since the stink bomb that was Legend of Despereaux.

First beef: the plot/writing. Kitschy and predictable, standard Saturday-morning stuff, as others have said. Pinnochio, Oliver Twist, Isaac Asimov; all the classics get the rip-off treatment. The instant I saw a room full of rowdy kids searching for waste, I thought, "great, Nathan Lane's the evil Fagan clone". Even Robin Williams was an engaging portmanteau of the man in August Rush. I know there aren't many original ideas left in Hollywood, but this was a poor effort. The character motivations are missing almost entirely. Everyone in the movie is a one-dimensional cardboard cutout just following the plot out of sheer bloody stubbornness. The president wants to start a war to get re-elected?! This is political satire too crude and off-target for Mad TV. A devotion to being a complete jerk is NOT good character motivation. Evil for evil's own sake is the sign of poor writers. The movie wasn't even an hour and forty for crying out loud, you could have squeezed in some kind of development.

Second; the voice acting. I mean, the plot could have been forgivable if the movie had any immersion value to lose yourself in, but every time I wanted to enjoy the experience, Mr. Cage's horrific voice acting kicked me right back out (and no, I don't have much respect for him as an actor aside from some of his early stuff). Sadly, for the legend he is, Donald Sutherland was hardly better. The two main pro/an-tagonist characters go back and forth like they're in a 2am TBS sitcom. Kristen Bell and Freddie Highmore were pretty good, though.

Finally, the direction. David Bowers was the man who brought the genius that was Flushed Away to us, and clearly, the bar was set too high. There are flashes of the same brilliance in a few of the throwaway jokes, but overall, there's just no humor for anyone over the age of 10. Most of the jokes were just weak. The pacing was off, with some of the character development slots getting little to no screen time. The movie just tried to go too big, too fast with nothing to lift it.

Conclusion: save your money. It's flash and sparkle with the depth of a spoon. I'm sorry I paid to see it, but that's what "caveat emptor" means after all.