Q: Greetings again from the darkness. This one will be compared to "The Princess Bride" and although it doesn't measure up to that classic, it is extremely entertaining and well made in its own right. The story line is a bit odd and the whole wall thing is never really explained, but the execution is fine, even building up strong suspense.

Charlie Cox plays Tristan, who falls for the wrong girl (Sienna Miller), and agrees to fetch her a fallen star ... who happens to be played by the stunning Claire Danes. Not much suspense on what happens with these two, but the suspenseful part comes in with the wicked witch played by Michelle Pfeiffer and the prince son of King Peter O'Toole looking to reclaim the ruby necklace our "star" is wearing. Lots of bad chasing the good.

Along the way, an encounter with the strangest pirate you will see (including any from the Carribbean). Robert Deniro plays Captain Shakespeare - tough on the inside, and shall we say in touch with his feminine side. Another encounter involves the brilliant Ricky Gervais as a fast talking trader and that is good for a couple of laughs.

Not your typical chase, coming of age, or fantasy film, but director Matthew Vaughn's ("Layer Cake") effort deserves an audience. Sadly the poor marketing campaign will probably prevent it from making any money. My guess it will find big success on video. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: A friend once told me that an art-house independent film ran in a cinema when- upon the closing of the film - audiences were so enraged they preceded to tear up the cinema seats. Of course, my imagination ran amok, trying to conjure up the contents of such a piece of work. Well,now my imagination can be put to rest.

I am a lifelong Andrei Tarkovky fan and an ardent admirer of his work. I have come across many people who thought Tarkovsky's films are slow-moving and inert. Opinions being what they are, I found this not to be true of the late director's wonderful works, which are wrought with meaning, beautiful compositions, and complex philosophical questions. Upon hearing Aleksandr Sokurov called the heir to Tarkovsky, I was excited to experience his films.

With the exception of the open air ride through the fields (Stalker), this movie has no kinship to anything Tarkovsky has done. It does not seem to possess the slightest meaning, even on a completely mindless level. It's supposedly "gorgeously stark" cinematography is devoid of any compositional craft. There is a no balance, no proportion, and the exposure meter seems to be running low on batteries in the freezing snow. The main character is so inept and indecisive, it makes you wonder whether his father might have been alive if he made up his mind sooner.

I am also not adverse to non-plots or story lines that progress on multiple non-linear fashion. But there isn't even a non-story here. One must surely enter the viewing of this film with a shaved head if one were to exit it with nothing gained and nothing lost, as hair-pulling would be the only possible answer to a pace that could make a Tarkosky time sculpture look as if Jerry Bruckheimer had filmed a Charlie Chaplin short.

I won't rule out that this may be one of Sokurov's stinkers (Tarkovsky's Solaris), but to conclude that he is one of Tarkovsky's heir-based on this film- would be to call Paris Hilton the successor to Aristotle. C'mon guys, don't be afraid to say it. No amount of big impressive words is going to magically bring this corpse of celluloid back to life. I don't profess to fully understand Russian culture and I probably don't have Russian values, but I immediately picked up on Tarkovsky's work as something magical, a treasure and a gift to viewers.

If it didn't have Sokurov's name on it, and it aired on say, Saturday Night Live, I'm pretty sure nobody would "read" all these magnificent analysis into this wet noodle of a flick. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: Now this is more like it! The first movie had some iffy dialogue and some weaker acting, but it seems like the team behind this got their stuff together for the sequel and put out a solid, thoroughly enjoyable, hilarious and creative comedy that will keep everyone on the edge of their seats the whole way through.

Seriously, this is just full of great stuff, brimming with creativity, and it's less of a spoof on 80s movies at the same time. The scenes in Hell are great, and so are the ones in Heaven. There's really no shortage to the mad-cap adventurous romp that this one promises, and you will never see another movie like this. Even the hammy final act of the movie isn't as bad as the first one, being generally heartwarming and enjoyable in its extremely cliche repertoire of family fun movie bliss. And even Keanu Reeves, despite looking about 30, isn't that bad here.

Sounds like a good deal to me. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: Ayone who whines about how this movie was crap or that it had no plot must have been looking for "Jean de Florrette". HELLO! this film was made to be a random act of comedy and in no way involves a plot in any way shape or form. I would also like to remind these whiners that if you are going to flay the crap out of this film that they seem to be missing the point. This film is clearly made for people who don't appreciate the so called "american humour" which seems to me just a pile of smutty crap. The point is everyone has an opinion and you should be a bit more appreciative that some peoples sense of humour may not be in line with your own before shooting your mouth off.

Thankyou OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive