Reviews

I'm astonished by the miserable so-and-sos above who complain about the "overdone production" on this movie.

Anand Tucker and his crew have taken obvious pains to elevate a conventional story into a visual tone poem. Every shot shines with polish, care, and attention. If it said "A Ridley Scott Movie" at the beginning, the reviews would read "Scott brings his usual visual excellence to bear."

A terrific little movie, elevated out of its class, with nice performances (I especially enjoyed the underused Gina McKee, who is practically luminous in every scene).

Now, the rest of you get back to watching and praising the drab and visually tedious kitchen sink junk that the British film industry does "so" well...

This is not a "monster movie".

Get that out of the way. The trailers make you think it's one. It's not. It's a political-esquire African race-genocide issue that uses a monster movie setting to sucker you in. And, good for it. Once I realised it was no "Lake Placid", I thoroughly enjoyed watching this.

The sequences involving the crocodile were pretty good, and fairly novel. Okay -- it's not wall-to-wall, but that's alright. It's very nicely photographed, and you get a sense that the characters are actually on location, rather than simply being inserted into second unit footage like other films might try and get away with. There's a nice score by John Frizzell.

Look. "Blood Diamond" informed on a similar theme, but because that's a "serious" movie, it got taken seriously. This is the B-version of "Blood Diamond", and -- y'know -- if you go in with the right mindset, you just might enjoy it.

Not satisified with completely taking every action beat from John Wyndham's "Day Of The Triffids", adding Zombies, and calling it "28 Days Later", now the overinflated duo are back raping the sci-fi spaceship drama.

Okay. First of all, dropping a bomb into the sun to prevent a cataclysm (which is never really shown anyway) was already done back in a 1990 movie called "Solar Crisis".

However, we have a previous mission to do this that vanished, but suddenly turns up again ("Black Hole"/"Event Horizon"), with a distress beacon ("Alien"). Added to that numerous complications (liberally lifted-and-adapted from "2010"), a religious lunatic subplot ("Event Horizon"), a character "staring in bliss at the stellar anomaly" (the original "Solaris"), a "have to reenter the ship via explosive bolt decompression" scene ("2001"), yadda yadda yadda.

It really is truly shocking. A bomb that has to be manually exploded by leaving a ship -- "Dark Star" -- wouldn't be quite so much of a lift, if the character in that movie wasn't called Pinback (the captain of the vanished ship in "Sunshine" is Pinbacker, and there's NO WAY IN HADES you can tell me that isn't an admission of guilt), and did his own little to-camera video-diaries. Tear-jerking denouement scenes that are so obviously modelled after "Armageddon".

Despite that, after the teeth-grating first half, this movie has some beautifully shot and directed moments.

It also has some of the dumbest logic, character idiocy, and roll-in-the-aisles laughing Hollywood Space Physics I've ever seen.

Many of the actors are earnest and give their best. Oddly, Chris Evans (!?!?!) and Michelle Yeoh are the two standouts.

Soderbergh's underrated "Solaris" is a far better movie.

Okay, Alex and Danny. Off you go. You've raped that genre. Time for a war movie, or something. I'll look forward to seeing all the scenes in those movies being "revisited"...

First of all, let me say I like Woody Allen. Okay, he's very hit and miss, right across the scale. But when he gets it completely right (like "Bullets Over Broadway" or "Mighty Aphrodite"): just, full marks.

If you're from midtown America and you're watching this, you just *might* be clueless enough to buy into the whole "jolly hockey sticks, more tea vicar" world that Woody Allen has written. But this is a film populated by utterly ridiculous stereotypes, swanning around in an idealized London Tourist Board picture postcard. Steve Martin's "L.A. Story" looks like a striking, visceral work of searing realism in comparison.

Myers is an unlikeable creep from the get go (there were odd moments I thought he was channelling Malcolm McDowell, but they never really surfaced), and the brother and sister duo are just so "ma and pa are going to Henley", I watched in disbelief. (Yes, such people exist. I know some of them. But for god's sake, Woody: try and populate the rest of your cast with a little diversity. This is a movie populated by the factory from "The Stepford Wives", with the computer chip switched to "British English". Where an actress doesn't go for an audition in some room in Soho...no, she goes (of course!) to the Royal Court Theatre. Were everyone shoots. And their father is on the board of some company. And...oh, for the love of mike. Just stop already.

Part of the problem is, Allen -- in Britain -- seems to have forgotten the working men's clubs and the REAL sense of Britain he experienced in his days there in standup. His existence now is defined by walking through a lobby where a man holds the door open: whether it's the Upper East Side, or London's Belgravia. When the characters in this go movie the cinema, they don't head to Leicester Square to see "Bond" or "Night At The Museum". Hell, no. They head off to the Curzon Mayfair to see "The Motorcycle Diaries".

British writer Richard Curtis might write fluffy disposable pastiches of quaint English-ism, but at least his entire cast isn't populated by vapid upper class twerps. Imagine the American version: all of Dan Ackroyd's irritating Club friends in "Trading Places", trying to make you genuinely care about a "searing" illicit romance.

Get a grip, Woody. You can't write British. Period. (That'd be "full-stop", by the way.)

I'd been looking forward to this movie for some time, and saw it last night.

I was deeply disappointed. I've pretty much enjoyed Zelwegger in everything she's done (and feel SHE, rather then Zeta Jones, should have garnered an Oscar for "Chicago"), but I hate to admit that not only is she horribly miscast, but she mugs and overplays the part so horrifically, I was expecting the movie to end with her being carted off to some post-Victorian asylum and administered electroshock therapy until the walls of her cell open up and her "friends" take her off to Neverland. Definitely NOT an Oscar-worthy performance.

The movie really opens up once McGregor appears on the scene, and he subtly steals every scene he's in...to my shock, he's turning into a more and more versatile actor the older he gets. Once he leaves the picture, there's a gaping void that simply can't be filled. Indeed, the last 20 minutes or so of the film is a badly-conceived mess.

Noonan's direction is all over the place -- the movie felt rushed in places, and is accomplished in others. Yet, strangely, he doesn't seem to be able to place the camera to get effective use in what are the many static "talky" scenes. His direction of the actors as them all spouting the lines at a level of barely-suppressed hysteria. It's as if somebody had sent spiked Cool-Aid back in time and topped up their teacups with it.

The blame for the movie must largely be laid at Richard Maltby's screenplay. The characters just don't ring true.

The nicest thing I can say is that the movie rattles along quickly, and it's largely pretty to look at. (Oddly, it reminded me of several movies from the early 70s -- including the far superior "Agatha".)

I saw this movie at the charity celebrity premiere at Mann's Chinese in Hollywood.

What a weird, schizophrenic flick, that really brings nothing new to the table. There are a handful of scenes with really good dialogue, that make you think "yeah, Stallone really remembers how to do this stuff." Sadly, just about every moment in the movie that rocks is in the trailer.

The first half to two-thirds of the movie is horribly edited and slow, and all of the early stuff with Rocky wandering Philly bemoaning Adrian's death, and visiting just about every place he and her once went is maudlin, and frankly embarrassing. There's "cutesy slapstick" from Rocky that goes on way past its "Best By" date (any movie that has to trot out a "loveable dog" to make the audience go "awww", but then pretty much forget about it for the rest of the flick, is really clutching at straws), and underwritten characters abounding. A couple of shots hint maddeningly at a bond between Rocky's son (Milo Ventimiglia from "Heroes" and actually pretty good with material that doesn't require him to do anything) and the son of a waitress Rocky latches on to, but then does nothing with it. Characters appear, and are largely forgotten about. Stallone has little grasp at keeping the movie's elements together.

Antonio Tarver as Mason Dixon has got to be the blandest adversary I've ever seen in a movie. The guy has no charisma whatsoever. Casting him was a huge mistake.

Lowlight of the movie has to be a frankly-freakish Mike Tyson taunting Rocky's opponent from the ringside.

The final boxing match? Oh, boy. Stallone should have been forced to watch "Cinderella Man" over and over to at least give him an idea of how movies in this decade are made.

The movie feels like a low-octane remake of the first Rocky, complete with sequences basically lifted from that movie (the highlights of the film). It's not that it's a bad movie...it's just a "Meh" movie. You'll likely catch yourself watching it on TV.

For me, "Rocky IV" is still the most enjoyable. In fact, meeting Lundgren at the party afterwards was the highlight of the night. He's still physically impressive: hell, I'd hire the guy for a movie in a second. He made himself accessible at the party, posing for pictures with anyone who came up to him. (Sly, on the other hand, was sequestered away on the raised MGM Bigwig stage, hemmed in by bouncers that refused admittance to anyone without the VIP Pass,and made himself available for photos only once or twice at the evening's very end. Considering all of the publicity mongering Sly's been doing on "Aint It Cool", he could have scored some points by actually working the party a little.)

I love Stallone as a screen presence. I just wish he'd give up the directing and writing reins, stop shoving his nose into interfering with producers, and just let a talented filmmaker really play to his strengths while his career still allows him time, and give us one more powerhouse performance that shows what he's capable of.

I have no idea if this movie will make money, because it lacks momentum and tension, and I just can't figure out who the audience is it's supposed to be playing to.

I loved Aronofsky's prior movies. "Requiem" is a work of demented genius. And the trailer for "Fountain" excited me no end.

I just saw this movie this evening.

Oh. My. God.

No, that's not a GOOD "Oh, My God." The first movie I ever saw at the cinema was "2001"...my uncle, for soem demented reason, took me to see it when I was 4. I have vague recollections of the Stargate, but wouldn't really fall in love with it for another decade.

I champion "A.I.", "Phase IV", "Silent Running", "Solaris", and many more.

But I draw the line at "The Fountain." I KNOW what Aronofsky's trying to say. I would LOVE to read his original script, and I'm dying to know what the big set-pieces were that were cut after the big "Brad Pitt Turnaround Budget Slash".

But, honestly: this film has high ambitions, and fails spectacularly on every single level. I *understand* what Aronofky's trying to say, and because I understand, I can only shake my head in bewilderment wondering how he managed to screw his own story so badly. The screenplay could have been fixed in less than a week: as it stands, it's patronising (not pretentious) and fuzzy.

I was less than impressed with the FX (oh, big deal: a smattering of FX in "2001" were done the same way...not an excuse to consistency bludgeon is with them as a theme-poem); I hated Rachel Weisz (and I was starting to like her in other movies); and it was a MASSIVE mistake using Kronos again for music.

I came out of the cinema to something I've never encountered before: an angry audience. We all knew we'd been duped. It wasn't saying anything special. And, I can only wonder at Aronofsky's comment that he wrote it after coming out "The Matrix". Coming out of "Dark City", I could understand...

-- Because, I pretty much echo them. This is a terrific first half of a movie, with a flawed -- yet still hugely enjoyable -- second half.

When I heard the Chris Cornell tune, I absolutely hated it...having listened to it over and over, I have to say that it's perfectly matched to the movie, and really somewhat memorable. And the title graphics: wow. There've been overblown -- and often ridiculous -- titles in Bond movies over the last few decades, but these completely capture the 60s theme completely. I loved them.

Craig is fantastic. Dalton was my favorite for presenting the Bond of the book (everyone will always say Connery, but Fleming's Bond was flawed and not quite so obviously stand-out as Connery; and Lazenby could have been fantastic were he given a movie that matched his persona), but after viewing the movie only once so far, I'd say that Dalton may be relegated to my second place.

Congrats to David Arnold for providing a score that does what it should have done years ago -- emulate Barry while at the same time being up to date in tone. (Although a caveat for people who buy the score through iTunes for all the extra tracks: if you're outside the United States, you're totally out of luck: you can't buy the bonus tracks. I don't know how people in the rest of the world are legitmately supposed to be able to acquire this "filler".) LeChiffre is a great villain. Vesper is an interesting femme, with the whole "doomed girl" Bond Girl thing quite clearly modelled after Tracey in "OHMSS".

If there are problems with the movie, they're in the actual execution. As others have pointed out, Paul Haggis' dialogue is often undisciplined and rambling, and many scenes (Campbell's fault) could have been reined-in, perhaps losing 5-10 minutes of running time. I thought the card games at Casino Royale were as dull as anything seen on actual televised poker (barely no scoring, no build-up of tension).

A few missed moments: although the early Aston Martin acquisition is nice, after Bond driving rental (!) early on, it would have been nice to have seen his eyes light up when given the new Aston.

And was there ANYONE who didn't guess Bond's transfer password? I fully expected the instant LeChiffre saw him type it in, that he'd nab the case and simply do it himself.

A great first outing for Craig. Let's hope Barbara Broccoli doesn't blow it with further outings.

And for the love of God: use the actual title "Property Of A Lady" sometime soon!

"Super-Ex", which I've REALLY been looking forward to for a couple of months, had a couple of strikes against it, off-the-bat.

(a) Ivan Reitman's direction is lethargic and sloppy. Past your sell-by date, Ivan.

(b) A godawful score by Teddy Castellucci, who I'd never heard of, and had to go to the IMDb to find out who he was. (For those who care, he's done a whole plethora of instantly forgettable scores on sophomoric comedies.) It was so lazy, it was obvious straight away it was a temp-track lift from James Newton Howard's infinitely superior "Dave".

(c) I want to strangle whoever came up with the title font, and the "oh-my-giddy-aunt, those-are-the-worst-end-titles-I-think-I've-ever-seen". Seriously. They're like the "Anti-Kiss-Kiss, Bang-Bang".

It's a shame, because it's a good cast (who all to a man -- and woman -- seem to be wading through treacle at half-power), and a fun idea. The script is pretty good, although not great, and really needed another pass. Curiously, it seems to fall flat on its superhero genre conventions...which is largely worrying, as the writer Don Payne is now scripting "Fantastic Four". (Note to the entire executive board of 20th Century Fox: kill yourselves now. You're grinding the sci-fi and fantasy genre into the ground with your lack of ability and knowledge of said.) Some funny lines, like "You seem to attract crazy women, don't you? It's like you give off a scent", which are amazingly applicable to me, given that I've had four beautiful-but-nutso girlfriends in a linear row over the last several years, each with a multitude of psychotic tendencies. (My long-suffering friends will empathize especially with this...there's even a passing physical similarity with Uma in at least 3 of them.) Needless to say, I laughed and sympathised with Luke Wilson's character.

It's "National Treasure".

Except, better in every single department.

Anyone who doesn't like this film has no sense of whimsy, and should be relegated to watching any given Paul W.S. Anderson movie, on loop, for all eternity.

If you're a film score fan, you'll guffaw at the wonderful in-jokes the late, lamented Michael Kamen crammed into this masterwork.

If you just like in-jokes, you'll have a blast.

If you want apocrypha: this was the very first movie I.L.M. used their digital printer on, signing the death knoll for the previous century of optical printer magician-ship. ("The Rocketeer" was the last. Dammit...why couldn't "Rocketeer" have had digital? That way, that movie could have been a CLASSIC.) Everybody knows when the cold wind blows...

Bruno? We need another album.

-- Without having to suffer through it in person. If this series continues at the same level as Davies' "Rose" premiere opener, it'll be finally and decisively exterminated by Season end, and Davies will supplant former producer John Nathan Turner as the hated face of Whovian destruction.

Davies is purported to be a fan of Who. HOW!?? There's not a spark of originality in this episode...the whole thing looks like a cut-and-paste exercise.

"Troughton changed into Pertwee...and fought the Autons", you can almost hear Davies musing, "So, that's what I'll have my Doctor do". Er...yeah, Russell. Except the author of that particular episode, Robert Holmes, had writing skills more accomplished than on evidence here. (Plotting and dialogue are shockingly bad, and scenes lurch from one to the other with a total lack of tension.)

"Baker was wacky in his opening episode...so I'll have Eccleston comment about his ears, fail at card tricks, and -- ", envisage a fit of giggling here, "-- I'll make a gay joke, to be subversive at prime time!" The scene with Rose's mum making goo-goo eyes at the Doctor was akin to an episode of "Hollyoaks". The only Doctor Davies needs, clearly, is one of the Script variety. (Piper's "I've got the bronze" was the limpest sop to Buffy-dom I've heard in a long time.)

From the badly-conceived "kinetic" opening sequence with Billie Piper (who might be quite decent, if she had some half-way competent lines, and a director that can move a camera), right through to her ghastly "slow motion run to the TARDIS" at the end, this episode is the epitome of a limp, cheesy, campfest. Even the formerly-reviled 20th Century Fox US telemovie with Paul McGann was of an order of competence higher than evident here. (And THAT had a TARDIS control room that didn't look like a cast-off from "Farspace". That "direct inside-to-outside" door conduit has to be the worst thing I've seen in Who since its equivalent in the Peter Cushing Dalek movie excursions.)

Autons. A terrific badguy. Reduced here to an adversary with all the menace from "Rentaghost".

The Nestene Consciousness. The Doctor's faced it aggressively before...yet, Davies' "plot" makes it seem like it's the first time he's encountered them. (And, no -- the "well, he's got a time machine" argument simply doesn't wash. This Doctor would have to date pre-Hartnell for that to work.) And can someone explain to me how the Autons somehow manage to get the TARDIS across the river to the Nestene's underground hideout, in less time than it takes the Doctor and Rose to belt across Westminster Bridge? Pitiful.)

The music: Murray Gold's work is no no better or worse than recent "blah" Who incarnations. Just simply...ineffective e. (My girlfriend turned to me and remarked that it was "depressing". I wouldn't go that far, but...)

The direction: unaccomplished, and uninspiring.

The casting: well. It's obviously a case of "Invite Russell's mates around for tea". (Whoever hired the talentless doofus that played Rose's boyfriend Mickey needs their head examining.)

The entire programme stinks. It resembles bad daytime fare...somewhere between CBBC, and (ironically) "Doctors". (And -- surprise! If you take time to look at the credits of half the production staff here, that's precisely where their stomping grounds were.) You look at something like BBC's "Spooks", and you could WEEP that that level of intelligence and ability there hasn't been brought to bear here. It's no wonder Sci-Fi Channel were unimpressed with Davies' travesty, and didn't want to pick it up for US transmission. (Their reimagined "Battlestar Galactica" frankly wipes the floor with this drivel.)

Eccleston's a fine actor, and deserves far better than material of this calibre.

Mal Young and the other BBC no-clue production team deserve the Staff Of Rassilon rammed firmly where the sun doesn't shine for assisting in perpetrating this bilge on a public that's been waiting far too long for the Doctor's return.

And let's not even MENTION the "Wheelie Bin" scene...the absolute nadir of Who-dom. Russell T Davies says the Bin's his favorite thing in the whole season. That tells me everything I need to know. Let him go and re-imagine "El Dorado" (or get on with prancing about on "Casanova", another of his "efforts" that premieres on the BBC tomorrow evening)...but for God's sake, get him as far away from this show as quickly as possible.

I saw the first trailer of this movie perhaps a year ago, and fell madly in lust with it.

In L.A., I tried to excite U.S distributor friends at various movie companies to view this.

A few weeks ago, this movie was picked up for U.S. distribution by Dreamworks.

Last week, I discovered that it was available on Japanese R2 DVD.

I ordered it.

Oh god.

"Casshern", is -- apparently -- made for a finite budget. (I've heard 9 million U.S., but I'm not sure. )

Some sections are fabulous, and utterly photorealistic. Other sections look like badly rendered video game cut-scenes.

Despite this, there's no denying the depth of love that went into making a

cheapo movie look, visually, to something comparable to 'The Matrix". Bless

'em: they didn't succeed. But, a good try.

However. Production-design notwithstanding, like a lot of Japanese sci-fi, this movie is a mess.

Vast amounts of the plot-time are taken up with appalling exposition. And the plot seems cribbed from a combination of "Matrix"/"Blade Runner"/"Universal

Soldier" (and, let's be serious here....who in their RIGHT MINDS wants to rip-off "Universal Soldier"???)

This movie is one of a recent slew that espouses the "Digital Backlot". George Lucas has done this on "Attack Of The Clones", and more recently with

"Revenge Of The Sith". Kerry Conran tried to do it -- and failed horribly -- with "Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow."

Lucas has achieved it best with "Clones", but...on the basis of "Casshern", have we gone too far? This is a movie that is pretentious to its core (if you have the DVD, watch the final minutes of the "Making Of" on Disc 2 to see what I mean.).

Honestly? I'm not a fan of Japanese cinema. It feels like they've been stuck in a rut for 30 years, and are desperate to break out. But, I keep buying the discs because I hope that I'll be proved wrong, and there'll be one shining example that'll sway me.

I didn't like the original "Ring"; I didn't like the original "Grudge". I hope -- desperately -- that something will emerge from this wonderful nation of creativity (let's face it -- it's mystifying that the Japanese succeed in EVERYTHING, except the visual arts), sometime soon/

On a whim, I pulled my Series 1 box set off the shelf, and logged on here.

God, I love this show. I just recently bought the Product Enterprises Eagle, which is every bit as good -- albeit diecast metal! -- as the scratchbuilt model that took me a month to make.

Where to start?

Okay -- Series 2. Let's largely forget this. There ARE some good episodes, but Fred Freiberger (sp?) annihilated the series. ITC should be ashamed for

bringing him onboard. Yes, I agree with the other posters when they say how

sexy Catherine Schell (Countess Schell, indeed!) is, but she was FAR more

exciting to me in the Season 1 "Guardian Of Piri".

Series 1. My god. When I was a kid, I was aware of how many "clunker"

episodes there were. Of course, that was from the perspective of a 9 year-old.

With the benefit of hindsight, I look at this series. There still is a lot of "clunk" (although not in the ways I first identified), but Series 1 is a gem. Yes, it's over- earnest. Yes, Martin Landau in a lot of it simply wasn't directed properly. (Look at his sublime performances in "Ed Wood" and "Tucker" to see what the

gentleman's capable of)

All-time best episode? "Dragon's Domain". Of course!

DD is a perfect episode.

Sigh.

I'm extremely comforted to see the comments of other users here, who have quite rightly pointed out that this dreadful exercise in tedium should be castigated rather than lauded.

The movie boasts competent cinematography, and Bill Murray -- always watchable -- sleepwalks through a script (a script!?? Is anyone sure this wasn't improvised?!?) directed with bland nothingness by a girl who, had she had different parents, nobody would blink twice about.

There is literally nothing to recommend this movie. How Johanssen won a British BAFTA for her performance in this is utterly, utterly baffling. To say that she has a finite range, is inferring she has a range that can actually go from "A" to "B". In both this and the equally overrated "Girl With A Pearl Earring", it seems her capabilities lie in exclaiming "Oh!", as if she'd suddenly remembered she'd left her purse somewhere.

God help the film industry, when the unwashed masses seem to regard drivel like this as a masterpiece.

I love "Fellowship". It's virtually a perfect movie, and one of the best ever made.

I like "Two Towers", but felt that the change of editor really harmed it. It works far better in the extended DVD edition.

"Return Of The King" is a shambling mess, comparable on many levels to the

disappointment of "Matrix Revolutions".

But...my principal problem with it, was similar to what I said a year ago about "Two Towers". The first hour just goes on...and on...and on. "Return" feels like a rush-job.

"Return" feels even more flabby than "Towers". I don't believe the pacing of the plot strands was worked out to its optimum level. I also don't believe that Howard Shore's score -- while wonderful music in its own right -- here lends itself well to establishing linking transitions between scenes. There was one cut in "Return" (during the elephant battle) both visual and audio, that was so jarring, it made me wince. Look at "The Empire Strikes Back": Williams cross-cuts all over the galaxy, and within action scenes on the same planet, and the score just fluidly winds through the movie and binds the whole thing together. Shore's score in places is like : "Music Chunk A"; "Music Chunk B".

So much of "Return" (scriptwise) feels overwritten in dialogue, re-emphasizing the same thing over and over. And the multiple, piled-on coda/endings just feel top-heavy, and threaten to implode the movie. And while I really liked the Smeagol opener, it just seemed unwieldy, and not the perfect way to open this movie.

The movie needed a little more time in the editing room. The jewel needed some more polishing.

Is it just me, or did anyone else think the Army of the Dead could have been realized in a more effective way? They looked like outtakes from "Ghostbusters 2"

On the plus side, yes...the battles are stunning. Gobsmacking. Although the size of them makes some of the scenes look a bit rushed: Orlando taking out the elephant, for example, which really looked a little miscomposited.

And someone please clarify this when they see it next: when Frodo wakes up in bed at the end, and the various members of the Fellowship come in...when Aragorn makes an appearance, does Wood mouth the word "Viggo"?! Or am I just going nuts?

As someone who has earned a little legitimate money from this franchise, I have to say, absolutely without bias...Ridley did the best job, period. This is a phenomenal film, on almost very level. A stunning piece of work, and an

example of how to do sci-fi art direction on multiple levels. (And let's not go into the incredible sound mix, and Goldsmith's stellar score)

Everyone after this (even the "Almighty Cameron") destroyed the franchise in

some way. The new DVD box set only emphasizes its sequels' deficiencies.

Accept no substitutes.

Does Guillermo The Bull (that can't seriously be his real name?!) have in excess of 300 friends/colleagues to post here?

Steve Norrington and the crew did an excellent job on the first movie. Stunning cinematography, awesome editing, great music score, fine acting, terrific

direction.

This movie fails on almost every single one of those levels. It looks like it was shot on toilet paper, with almost neolithic incompetence.

I couldn't wait for it to end, and I will actively avoid having to inflict another frame of this movie upon myself in this lifetime.

If you're a fan of great movies...or even fun action flicks...AVOID LIKE THE

PLAGUE.

Although many of the Inspector Lynley episodes are -- how can I say this? -- generally sluggish, in this one, writer Kate Wood injected real pathos and genuine moments of humor and chemistry between the detective duo of Lynley and Havers, making it an above-average entry to the series. I hope the BBC feel fit to hire her for future episodes.

The real standout in this episode is Neve McIntosh, genuinely moving in the role of Olivia...keep an eye on her performances in the future.

I was very sorry to hear of the axing of the latest incarnation of

"Crossroads"...surely the closest thing to America's fantastically, wonderfully, ridiculous "Sunset Beach".

I love watching this while at the gym...the yummy Emma Noble enlivened many

a treadmill session. <g>

And some of the storylines were actually quite decent...the episode with the

casino scam was actually quite well written, and more gripping than most of the other episodes.

As a screenwriter, I can sympathize wholeheartedly with the "journey" that this wonderful short movie's lead character goes on.

I first saw this on British television, some 15 years ago. Animated in day-glo neon style artwork, and with a smile-out-loud infectious faux-Jamaican song

that you'll be humming for days, this short tells the story of a New York writer who is whisked off to Hollywood. He's feted and schmoozed by the Film Studio dregs, and returns to New York triumphant with the age-old promise "the check is on the way". The seasons change, and when he eventually calls the studio, they've no recollection about who he ever was. Dispirited, he writes a children's book instead.

I was thrilled to find a copy from an old British television showing of this lovely little short. I'd be happier if I could by a legitimate DVD release of it.

Guys...why is this languishing on a shelf, when it could be out there delighting a new generation of viewers?

...Then it better at least be good!

I saw this short...countless times, as it was released in the UK spliced onto the front of "The Empire Strikes Back". I must have viewed this about 30 times, as a consequence.

This short film, which had a Princess held in thrall to a supernatural creation, sticks in my memory long after other shorts have been been long forgotten.

Medieval in tone and filmed on wind-blasted landscapes, watery glades, and

decrepit turrets, I remember the Princess phrase to the hero: "I am bound, to the Black Angel", as if it were yesterday.

I'd love a copy of this movie!