Film Reviews by AB

This is dull beyond belief with nothing to attract as a film.

More like psychology than anything with a pointless storyline, a love interest and a very low-key religious undercurrent

Certainly not a "thriller" as quoted

A lot of parts of the books with weird interpretations but nothing to grab you and make you feel that this film is exceptional. Best part? The Cheshire Cat, with the other characters being far too wide of the mark except in Burton's imaginings

Very much along the lines of a Brian Rix farce where you want to scream at the characters to say "Just tell her" and everything will be sorted one way or another. Acting was better than expected with James Garner showing some good comic timing and the judge inserting some light-heartedness into the story over the farce that has unfolded during the film. Doris Day is a better actress than others would have you believe and gets to sing, which is one of her fortes as an all-round entertainer

The title and synopsis drew me to the film but the premise had so much more over the reality.

The storyline is really a revenge one rather than a sci-fi/fantasy one and only one city ever featured - are there others, if so where and what are they doing? Why is there a separate group of people behind the wall? Why are they not in a city, movable or not? If a small town can move (first scenes) why not villages scuttling about like small dogs?

I *may* read the books but only to try and find out what the background to it all is. As a film, I have no idea as to whether it conforms to the books or not but as a standalone entity, it is a poor let-down.

NOT a comedy as advertised, not even a drama, more like a 1-star, overrated social commentary set in the wild west. Acting is poor, storyline so-so but no fun nor suspense. Even the Indians are on-side!

FIrstly - pretentious in that the WHOLE film is in Spanish and no-one can understand what is being said or what is going on

Secondly - the cast list according to the synopsis on this site and the DVD cover says that it stars Antonio Banderas and Salma Hayek - neither of those two appear in the DVD that I have just watched and are not listed in the credits that appear at the end of the film.

Lots of visual and verbal jokes on the go here and it makes for a great film.

As others have said - very moralistic, but put that to one side and just laugh along with it all

Unlike many other reviewers, I haven't read the book (yet!) but I enjoyed this - I didn't think it was too long at all - my main gripe was that some of the (possibly?) key scenes/conversations were in French or Latin and didn't help the details, but that is not to take away from the film's whole hypothesis. If I remember rightly, The Church were up in arms over the story but (a) why? it was a story (b) isn't the Bible a series of stories albeit with some history and guidelines for life contained therein and (c) some of the historical Church/Papal meetings and decisions are true, so why not make a tale of those? I didn't quite understand the reasoning of the final couple of scenes where Tom Hanks decides to go off to the Louvre again, so I really DO have to read the book!

The eve of WW2 and it turns out that everyone that matters wants Mr Churchill to be PM so that Hitler isn't appeased by the current incumbent and his mates. So who to work it all out. Some wannabe actress whose father may or may not hold a secret about what is going on. A film that is overblown on what MIGHT have been but the whole thing is boring.

A mess of a film - I think that you have needed to watch the first film to understand what is going on...

... it is also very pretentious to make a film that is 80% spoken in Spanish for world release.

I Iost track of who was who and what the hell the whole thing was about

Absolutely pretentious incomprehensible psychobabble drivel. No idea what this was about (bar saving a father) or who thought that this was worth making into a film.

Not as good a film as Mystery Road and Jay Swan gets to shoot rifles from a distance again!

People have said that it is slow moving but I did not find that a negative - life does not rush about in the Outback and the storyline was very plausible for a remote place. Q: How did Jay get back 'home' after his run-in with security as the plane took off? He was a bit of a physical mess after the car roll and it seemed a long walk to me to wherever he was trying to get to.

Would love to see the details on the map that he used a couple of times to try and find his way round - must be such landmarks as "3rd rock", "big sand dune" !!!

I am a fan of westerns, especially the better spaghetti westerns, but this is truly awful - devoid of a real story or plot, any back story revelation and any real acting,and with the ubiquitous shriek of a bullet being fired from every gun in the film, as per every spaghetti western. I can only surmise that Lee Van Cleef needed the money for some reason to star in this

Not great, not even good with a storyline that promised a lot and delivered less. Plus: Cara Delevingne as eye candy and acting better than I expected. Rihanna's role, played with tongue in cheek. Good CGI. Well-formed introductory 10-minutes Minus: a seeming 12-year-old as a MAJOR in Special forces? Lack of real feeling between the two leads, an ending that I still am unsure of (what exactly happened to the Pearls? and how?).

Astonishingly complex, and even after reading the Wikipedia synopsis, I still cannot get my head around it all.

Watching it, all my brain was thinking was (a) The Temporal Prime Directive from Star Trek had nothing on this and (b) Dr. Who's statement of "timey wimey". Good luck in trying to understand it all (Without cheating via Wikipedia)