Reviews

In an effort to be politically correct in terms of animal rights as well as perceived racism, this remake has butchered the story. I spent more time saying "what the..?" than enjoying the movie. Plus the cgi is not cute and so much charm and cuddliness is lost. If you are a fan of the original, give this a miss.

This beautifully animated movie has the hallmarks of an enduring classic. Cleverly scripted, it follows the Joseph Campbell "Hero" formula with several twists of individualistic humour, primarily allowing Jack Black's deliberately stilted story telling style to be relayed in the opening sequence (as witnessed in "School of Rock" and "Be Kind, Rewind").

The movie pays homage to many Chinese greats including "Enter the Dragon", "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" plus several early Jackie Chan movies.

The animation style is predominantly Dreamworks' own with just a touch of Manga.

My children (7 and 3) and I were laughing very early on, usually at different scenes, proving once again that Dreamworks has the formula to appeal across the age demographic.

In true Chinese food style, we felt sated when the credits started rolling. Ten minutes after leaving the cinema, we wanted to see it again...

My 7 year old son gave it 21/10. I'll settle for a more modest 9/10.

This family friendly yarn covers the adventures of a spoilt pet who ends up seeing the other side of life, i.e. in the sewer. It's basically another tale of Town Mouse meets Country Mouse with a few added characters and plot twists. On the whole a fairly predictable story which was a little disappointing when one has such high expectations of Aardman (I'm a huge fan of Wallace and Gromit) and of the Shrek movies.

The characters who kept the whole thing together for me were the slugs. Their vocal stylings were superbly apt and hilarious.

On the whole, it was reasonably entertaining and my kids enjoyed it a lot.

I really like Mick Molloy, "Crackerjack" being one of his best and I liked the trailers for Boytown, so expected to love it. However, something is wrong with the comic timing in this venture. There were a few genuine raucous laughs but this was mostly really feeble painful try hard humour that made me cringe and wince instead of laugh.

The music to the songs was reasonable enough, but the lyrics were all pathetic and unfortunately there were too many lame songs and not enough substance.

Mick, please try for your more subtle brand of humour next time. Your "Mum" was the only entertaining character in this venture.

My husband and I went to see this last night in part being fans of "Da Ali G Show" and also carried along with the hype with the marketing campaign. My verdict is that this movie is a somewhat mixed bag of great satire, uncomfortable humour, completely crassness and plain bad taste. Some of the scenes had me laughing hysterically, some shifting uncomfortably but still laughing and some shaking my head as too extreme and bad taste to be funny.

The film is extremely creative and original, is well filmed and scripted. It is probably a very good case study on social tolerance and opinion across a broad demographic. The most interesting scene for me was Borat making a guest appearance at a rodeo and the crowd reactions to his speech and then to his singing.

It is worth seeing in part for humour, but mostly for social observation. How would you react if confronted with those situations? Plus the image of Borat's swimwear is unforgettable! 6/10

This was a fascinating documentary on Global Warming presented by Al Gore. It is the most engaging documentary I have seen, in the same league as "Bowling for Columbine". It was factual without being patronizing and has provoked my family into action. We were already more environmentally sensitive than most of our neighbours and have taken it up a notch. I am an Australian citizen and was disgusted to learn that Australia has not signed the Kyoto agreement and have since joined lobby groups to pressure our government into doing so.

It is worth seeing whether you are a believer or a skeptic or somewhere in between. Do your own research afterwards to confirm the facts. This is no "Da Vinci Code" with theories based on theories and masquerading as fact. Good for all ages from 12 years.

The whole family went to see this movie (including 2 kids 5YO and almost 2YO) this afternoon and we all really enjoyed it.

To me it came across as an original plot line and I found it highly amusing and entertaining, although at one point I thought "Oh no, not the Lion King again". The only thing I found somewhat distracting through the first half hour of the film was that the male cows (aka bulls or bullocks) had udders. Who taught these guys biology? Anyhow, I enjoyed the story, especially the night rave in the barn. Good animation, entertaining music, lots of laughs and something for all the family.

There was nothing else on, so I went to see this. I had been a part-time fan of the series and sadly, this was nothing like it.

The series used soft pastel lighting whereas the movie was so dark, at times you struggled to see what was going on. Maybe I needed a set of night-vision goggles.

In the series, I could easily understand what everyone was saying. In this movie at times the dialogue was so mumbled and riddled with slang, I needed subtitles.

The pace of the movie was also quite slow: several of my fellow theatre goers found it boring. What action sequences there were, were entertaining without being original.

And what was with Colin Farrel's hair?? Maybe I am out of touch, but I didn't thing hairy bear crossed with grunge was an image either a drug dealer nor a cop would like to portray.

On some positive notes, I liked Gong Li's character. It was good to see a strong, credible woman in an action movie. The night views of Miami, especially from the water, were awesome. And on a dorky note, the boats were cool.

In summary, if there is nothing else on and you want to be vaguely entertained without being offended, it's worth a look. Don't expect too much...

5/10

I had read so many good reviews about this film, so just HAD to see it. Well about half an hour into it, I was bored to death and it didn't get any better.

Basic plot summary: young aboriginal girl gets raped and murdered and dumped in the local water system near a rural township. Four friends off on a fishing weekend in a secluded location, find the body. Instead of reporting it, one of the party ties the body up and they carry on with their holiday. They later report the find to the police and incur a backlash from the local and the aboriginal community. Each person and their spouse react differently and it is this character exploration that is central to the film's story.

It sounds good and original. However the pace was too slow and I felt nothing for the characters. Laura Linney's character meant well, but she was sickeningly self-righteous. There was also a very poisonous little girl who I found difficult to watch as her behaviour bordered on sociopathic. The only character I liked was Laura Linney's son.

My summary: slow, hard to watch and completely unsympathetic characters.

4/10

I went to this with mixed feelings as I had not enjoyed the 1968 movie, but had heard great things about the musical play, so I thought I would give it a chance. I was not disappointed. I was laughing fairly early on in the movie and it just got better and better.

It was extremely well cast: I especially liked Roger the gay director. The pigeons were also brilliant: watch out for their props! If you generally like musicals, appreciate satire and are reasonably broadminded, I think you will like this movie. The lyrics in many of the songs are hilarious, especially the pseudo German ones.

One tip, stay to the very end of the credits: there is a nice little segment at the end.

As a British born, Australian dwelling citizen, I only knew a superficial amount of the McCarthy years in the USA. This film was an enlightening and educating experience, prompting me to find out more about this era. The core subject matter – freedom of speech; litigation by due process (c.f. the witch hunts that went on in the McCarthy era) – evokes passion in many and is particularly dear to my heart.

I enjoyed this film on many levels. I found it intellectually stimulating, engaging and educational. It was well acted, with a particularly memorable performance by David Strathairn as Ed Murrow, delivering deliciously enunciated readings.

It is well scripted, in that it is short and sharp; getting the point across without labouring it and assuming that the audience has a reasonably high level of intelligence.

I felt it was appropriately filmed in black and white, which gave added realism to the archive footage shown.

One small detail I enjoyed was that it gave a sense of a bygone era. Almost everyone was smoking and at every opportunity, including those on camera during filming of the evening shows. I particularly liked the advert for Kent cigarettes – that was a brand that "intelligent people" were supposed to smoke! How the world has changed… Plus ca change, plus c'est la même chose

Based on historical evidence, this film gives an entertaining account of life in a German prisoner of war camp and a planned "Great Escape" i.e. all the inhabitants out in one hit.

I first saw this film as a young child. It was one of my Dad's favourite movies and stars several of our mutually favourite actors: Charles Bronson, Steve McQueen, Richard Attenborough among them. Almost every time this movie came on TV, I felt compelled to watch. I finally bought the movie on DVD and watch it at least once a year.

There is very little to dislike about this film. It suits male and female; a huge age range; it contains drama, comedy and plenty of action; the acting is excellent on the whole. The music is fantastic and a suitable tempo and mood throughout. Even knowing the story's outcome, I am still taken through the gamut of emotions each time I watch it.

One bit of trivia: apparently Steve McQueen did the majority of his motorbike stunts (although apparently they wouldn't let him do the one at "the border").

As a major fan of the Harry Potter books and the first two movies, I have to say that this, like Azkaban disappoints. This movie lacks the energy and enthusiasm of its predecessors.

Enormous chunks were cut out of the book, including major characters, sub-plots and parts of the main plot. The bare bones of the book plot were left in and even then there was quite a lot of disconnection. A few new story threads were added to make some sense of the overall story post its radical surgery. There was no understanding of time and pacing through the movie; for example the Quidditch World Cup being held in the summer holidays; the fact that the Triwizard champions were supposed to have one task per term. Other characters were cut back to a cameo at best: Sirius, Snape to name but two. I appreciate that a novel needs editing to take it to the big screen - I loved the treatment of the first two movies - but this seemed like butchery.

My other criticisms: 1. what was going on with Dumbledore's (Michael Gambon's) accent? One minute he was from South East England, the next from Yorkshire, the next from Ireland. At one point I thought he was trying to impersonate Richard Harris! 2. Daniel Radcliffe really needs acting lessons. He is getting worse with each movie. He seems to struggle with expressing any subtleties of emotion

Things I enjoyed: 1. The special effects are superlative, especially the scenes with the dragon. Harry's interaction with the dragon was excellent: very creative and entertaining. 2. Rupert Grint is getting better and better as Ron, managing more subtle humour with his very expressive face. 3. Ralph Fiennes as Lord Voldemort and the whole scene in the graveyard. I felt that this was very true to the spirit of the book and the portrayal was suitably sinister.

If you are an avid Potter fan, you still *have* to see this movie. Just don't hope for too much or you may be disappointed.

The movie revolves around three central characters: Harry, sometime petty thief and would-be-actor; Harmony, aspiring actress and Perry, gay Private Detective. Harry is the narrator of the story and the initial few minutes, your curiosity is piqued with a touch of impatience as you wonder where the story is going. Then it is rather a quirky, thrill seeking ride of the unexpected.

The core plot runs a bit like a standard murder/ mystery thriller surrounded by Saturday Night Live type side sketches. Most of these were verging on bad taste, but my husband and I found them hilarious. At times, I think we were the only people in the cinema laughing. Case in point is a scene with a dog chewing on something that belongs to Harry.

Not Oscar winning stuff, but a nice change from the mainstream. A good cackle...

Looking at the polls, I may well stand alone in my critique of this movie. I thought it was dull and boring. I had managed to work out the plot and outcomes in the first 15 minutes of the movie, most of it within the first 5 minutes. The characters were one dimensional naive twits who believed that by stamping their feet they could make the world a better place. I felt no empathy for the characters, despite their noble intent. The lead characters did not seem credibly connected at all.

The camera work at some stages was simply irritating: close up shots, action shots and landscape shots with no apparent connection or meaning.

On the plus side, some colourful African scenery and it was pleasant to see Ralph Fiennes play a sensitive soul for a change.

My advice... see something else.

An interesting story about the relationship between two diametrically different sisters in a dysfunctional family.

Rose is the elder sister, a lawyer, hard working and materially successful. Maggie still believes she is 18 and life is just one big party with no responsibility. There is an exasperated love that binds them together.

I don't want to tell any of the story as the joy is in watching the characters and the relationships unfold. It is an angst ridden tale, mainly of people misunderstood. It is filled with love and insightful understanding which is mostly moving (tear jerking for me) although at times a little sugary. My favourite character was Simon, a guy who loves his food and is, in his owns words, "an expert orderer" for his dinner guests.

Quiet, professional acting from the cast. I particularly like Shirley Maclaine's subtle performance. My husband enjoyed it very much too, so one you can comfortably take the guys to.

This edition of "Pride and Prejudice" is the truest adaptation I have seen of Jane Austen's famous novel. I was surprised that the movie was made in the reasonably recent wake of the very popular BBC TV mini series with Colin Firth's Darcy, but I'm glad it was.

The film, like the series, had awe inspiring landscapes and stately home settings. My favourite was a scene in the Peak District with Keira Knightley just standing on some rocks on a hill. The difference between this version of "Pride and Prejudice" and the others was the faultless acting. Keira captured Elizabeth Bennett's persona as I had read her: highly intelligent, opinionated and with a strong sense of playful mischief. Matthew MacFadyen had Darcy's arrogance, but also a credible sense of vulnerability which made one believe that Elizabeth could have fallen for him. I was left wondering in other versions how on earth Elizabeth could have any feelings beyond gratitude for Darcy because he still remained very contained. Brenda Blethyn was perfect as the mother: a role very easy to overact as Mrs Bennett's character is so crass.

Another aspect I liked about this film is that it truly reflected the family in their status of genteel poverty. They have a lovely home, but it is rather the worse for wear. One thing I had to chuckle at though was the state of the farm. I can't believe that anyone would let their yard get into such a scruffy state, no matter how little money they had! A surprisingly good film. My husband enjoyed it very much also, ergo not your standard period drama for the girls.

9/10

"The Proposition" is to trade a naive younger brother's life for an older diabolical brother. Faced with this choice, Guy Pearce sets out to kill or trap his older brother whilst his younger brother is held captive in a small town prison. Whilst the police captain seems an honourable man, with uncommon strategic intelligence, the rest of the townsfolk are possessed with a small town, right wing mentality.

Set in 19th Century pioneer outback Australia, there is a quirky richness that draws the viewer in. The landscape's sunset coloured backdrop visually dazzles and elicits a sensory surge. You can feel the heat, you can smell the sweat, you can taste the dust. Nick Cave's sound track complements the uneasy feeling you experience throughout this movie.

The film seems slow to start, but the pace builds not unlike a horse going through its paces. The last few minutes are an exhausting flat out gallop. Looking at the film as a whole, I appreciated the slow context setting and the gradual build up. The acting is first class: I particularly liked the captain. It was enjoyable to see David Wenham play such an unpleasant little man for a change, as his characters are usually so lovable. The violence is rather brutal at times: gasps of shock were elicited at several points in the film.

Not for the sensitive or the typical Hollywood cinema going types.

8/10

The premise of this story is simple: a shy, nice guy has managed to get to 40 without losing his virginity. He is not a crass, ugly "loser" as you might expect, but a sensitive soul who has given up even trying with women. His colleagues find out about his "condition" and go about trying to rectify it post-haste. The lengths they will go to are incredible.

I liked the premise of the story and a lot of the situations the Andy (the virgin) ends up in. I was cackling with laughter through many of them. He is the picture of doe eyed innocence in so many scenes.

However, what detracted from the movie was the overuse of unnecessary bad language in the movie. Sometimes the swearing was completely appropriate (e.g. a painful scene with Andy at the beauty parlour which had me in hysterics) but a lot of the time I questioned the artistic or comedic value add. The film was also a little slow to get going.

Some great characters added some extra dimensions to the movie. I particularly liked Paula, the store manager and her interactions with Andy, particularly towards the end of the film. The sound track was also fantastic and cleverly woven into the movie.

Not one to take your Mother to, but definitely a lot of fun for a boys night out.

I was really looking forward to seeing this film. I am a fan of Australian drama having given high marks to such films as "Tom White", "Japanese Story", "Three Dollars" and "Look Both Ways" and also of many of the fantastic cast in this film (Cate, Sam, Hugo) but I have to say I found this film boring.

The premise and story are interesting and reasonably original. The acting is excellent. I loved Hugo Weaving's character portrayal. I just found the pace too slow, the film bordering on turgid. My husband fell asleep for about 15 minutes during the film and I didn't bother to wake him up as I figured he wouldn't have missed much. (Philistine, I hear you cerebral critics cry...) At the end of the day, I guess I just couldn't relate to the characters or feel anything for them.

You may love it, but I won't be rushing to see it again...

I had low expectations when going to see this film, so I wasn't disappointed: it was a lot better than I expected.

A lot of the jokes are corny and the plot is weak, but I have to say that the audience I saw it with thought it was hilarious. There was a lot of laughing throughout the film, some of it at Willie Nelson's terrible jokes (and he has a stack of them), some at the various situations and some at the antics of the Duke cousins. I was in need of cheering up and had a good cackle at this. A lot of the driving sequences were highly enjoyable.

Not Oscar winning material, but a good laugh. Don't take it seriously and you may enjoy it!

The premise of this movie is quite depressing. The movie opens with a death that a young woman has witnessed. A journalist and photographer turn up to report on the story and lives become intertwined. Each character has their own heartache. One has cancer which he is afraid to tell anyone about.

What I liked about this movie was its subtlety going through the various human reactions to a horrible event. Nothing seemed overplayed: it was painfully real and I felt for them. My favourite interplay was between a train driver and his son. Few words were spoken: the gestures and body language said it all.

Another aspect that I really enjoyed were the naive drawings and animation throughout the movie. I understand that Sarah Watt is usually a director of animated films. The use of animation here was excellent: the pictures spoke the emotions with no need for scripting.

If you liked "Tom White" or "Three Dollars" you will probably enjoy this, although I ranked these both higher as they struck more of a chord with me than this film.