GeorgeBailey

Absorbed, deafened and depressed. I suspect that I won't be buying the DVD, unlike Inception, which I wanted to watch over again. Whatever the science might have been saying - and you might need to have read (and understood) Hawking, the emotions were loud and clear and Zimmer-insistent. Still, it did make me want to go home and hug my sons.

A potentially interesting story - looking for the accumulated hoards of **** art works - is uncertainly told. Partly because of the Kelly's Heroes approach - slightly wacky gang of misfits pulled together as if for a heist movie - and partly because of the necessity, apparently, to give the audience a map that checks war movie titles rather than history. Enjoyable overall, though mostly because of the armchair comfort **** cast.

Touching, funny, involving, human, simple, direct. This is perfect cinema. Utterly convincing, almost to the extent of making me queasy, though I soon got my space legs, Gravity makes maximum use of sound and vision. Just remember to breathe!

Ghastly. If this is the 'comedy of embarrassment', the only people embarrassed must have been the players. Only Simon Baker emerges with any credit. Lame plot, lame jokes, poor characterisation, desperately contrived scenes. I'm not even sure why I've scored it as high as 4 out of 10!

Excellent and uncomfortably enjoyable. An initial sketch (not gratuitous as **** claimed) gives a brief insight into who Phillips is, that he has regular domestic anxieties: in short, that he is not a hero, or even a hero in the making. Similarly, the introduction to the Somalis helps us see that they are not villains, but victims of the shocking inequalities in the world. Hanks, cast as Everyman once again, comes under increasing pressure as the ordeal unfolds, yet whilst you want him to be freed, you have more sympathy for the pirates than you might have anticipated. When the might of the US war machine swings into action, the ruthlessness of the resolution is neither admirable nor triumphant. Relief is tinged with regret, that we live in a world where the weak cannot survive against such odds.

While critics are always on the lookout for the next Citizen Kane and score poorly when a film fails to come up to scratch those who aren't paid to go to the movies are on the lookout for good entertainment for 90 minutes. This delivers. Warm, touching, funny, well-played What's not to like in this movie? Liam James is good as the teenager at the centre of the story and Rockwell, Carell and Collette give great support.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Go and see it, with moderate expectations, and you'll enjoy it. You can then make your own mind up about its class. I'd like to see it for a second time, to enjoy the visuals again (for which it earns my '7') and to check to see whether the plot holes were as big as I remember! ("Plot holes" implies that there was a plot in the first place, of course!) It's difficult to believe that a director of Scott's capabilities could possibly have put together such a vacuous story. I can only assume that the ageing Ridley is fretting about What Lies Beyond and is either wholly cynical about mankind, or melancholic at the thought that man's quest for purpose and meaning in life is as fruitless as Shaw's quest for the aliens depicted in ancient man's primitive paintings. Or both. Of course, he could just have been fretting that he failed to make Alien anything more than a 'boo' movie so decided to invest Prometheus with the significance that critics claim was missing from his 1979 masterpiece. I've not read any critic who has actually explored the significance of David's modelling of himself on TE Lawrence. Is it to show that David has chosen a deeply flawed model, and thereby given himself a Sisyphean task? He'll never be a warm human while he chooses to emulate one of life's most famous Outsiders.

At least 15 minutes too long, with a poor star performance (Theron) and merely adequate turns from Stewart and Hemsworth, this film took itself rather too seriously. Certainly, it looked great, and the dwarfs were fun, but it did not offer much that was memorable or interesting.

An amiable way to while **** long was it? I found it less engaging than either Iron Man 1 or Thor, and whilst the dialogue interludes were welcome relief from all that crashing and banging, they didn't really go anywhere to help create believable characters. Not the point, perhaps: you can't create 'belief' in demi-gods and superheroes who are, to all intents and purposes, indestructible, by endowing them with mortal failings like arrogance, brotherly love, rage, patriotism and a desire to set the record straight? On the plus side, Mark Ruffalo's Hulk; stupendous effects (undermined by their ruthless efficiency - they're not special anymore) and a couple of good belly laughs; Scarlett Johansson in leather...

It just goes to show that you should read more about a movie before you go and see it. I was expecting some uproarious comedy, not some derivative hommage to 'Ollywood. It was mildly amusing, with a winning performance by the dog, but the 'plot' was slight and I'm not sure I got it. "The Woman In Black" was more enjoyable, "The Descendants" more worthy of recognition. As for the silent gimmick: give me talkies.

Getting the "Harry Potter" bit out of the way first, Daniel Radcliffe does what he does best: impassioned observer. No angst, no histrionics, not much in the way of emotion at all, but he fits well enough here, in a Victorian ghost story with all the trimmings. I passed a 'pleasant' hour and a half waiting for the next jump, and there were enough to keep me interested. The story is straightforward and directly told - there's no messing about with any sub-plots - and the supporting cast, especially Ciaran Hinds give the whole a plausible momentum. The producers knew that their audience would be wide and wisely left out the kind of gore and horror associated with Hammer's better known movies: anyone hoping for something more graphic will be disappointed.

I thoroughly enjoyed this drama. At first, the tone of the movie is a little disconcerting - should I laugh or not? But with a little help from the director with one or two moments of obvious farce (Clooney struggling to run in flip flops) it becomes clear it is both a gentle and subtle comedy, with touches of wit and tenderness. The supporting cast is excellent, and the Hawaiian locations are simultaneously pedestrian and beautiful: this is where ordinary people lead largely ordinary lives. Almost every scene presents Clooney with a mini dilemma, and there is no certainty which choices he will make. One of the best movies I've seen in a long while.

Meryl Streep gives a performance worth a 9, but the story in which it is set is dissatisfying. It introduces the entirely speculative and improbable idea that Thatcher is 'haunted' by Denis. It reminded me of Edith Evans' The Whisperers. Instead of trying to focus on one or two aspects of her leadership, or her personal history, it tries to do them all, at speed, using too much newsreel, and accompanied by ploddingly unoriginal music. As someone who grew up in Thatcher's Britain, I was depressed by reliving a political decade I'd rather forget!

Other than a general tendency not to want to pan a movie entirely, I'm not sure what I'm giving it 4 for. The majority of the characters were uniformly unpleasant, the quantity of swearing off-putting (though that's how we know it's a Brit comedy I suppose) and the general themes rather over-worked and reworked without humour. Tamsin Greig's Beth was just about worthy, though coming across so down-trodden it was difficult to feel very much sympathy, even in the face of Nicholas' infidelity and insufferable smugness (something Roger Allam does very well). Arterton's Drewe is just plain colourless. Whilst the camera loved her curves, there was little else on show: no motivation, no sympathy, no humour. Comparisons with Hardy's Far From the Madding Crowd are obvious, but unworthy, and the fact that it was based on a graphic novel is no excuse for cartoon characters that are spiked with inhumanity, rather than leavened with humanity.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

To Srad - "I am convinced that the critics who have raved about this movie and have given it such positive reviews haven't actually read the books." It's not necessary to have read a book to enjoy (or to abhor) a 'film-of-the-book'. Films should stand or fall on their own merits. Clearly, as far as many of the critics are concerned, it stands.

Every scene too long, no character particularly sympathetic (certainly not the lead), very little to laugh at, and a thin, well, actually, no plot: I don't know how this film has garnered so much praise.