Nearly 20 years after riding his last Crusade, Harrison Ford makes a welcome return as archaeologist/relic hunter Indiana Jones in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, an action-packed fourth installment that's, in a nutshell, less memorable than the first three but great nostalgia for fans of the series. Producer George Lucas and screenwriter David Koepp (War of the Worlds) set the film during the cold war, as the Soviets--replacing Nazis as Indy's villains of choice and led by a sword-wielding Cate Blanchett with black bob and sunglasses--are in pursuit of a crystal skull, which has mystical powers related to a city of gold. After escaping from them in a spectacular opening action sequence, Indy is coerced to head to Peru at the behest of a young greaser (Shia LaBeouf) whose friend--and Indy's colleague--Professor Oxley (John Hurt) has been captured for his knowledge of the skull's whereabouts. Whatever secrets the skull holds are tertiary; its reveal is the weakest part of the movie, as the CGI effects that inevitably accompany it feel jarring next to the boulder-rolling world of Indy audiences knew and loved. There's plenty of comedy, delightful stunts--ants play a deadly role here--and the return of Raiders love interest Karen Allen as Marion Ravenwood, once shrill but now softened, giving her ex-love bemused glances and eye-rolls as he huffs his way to save the day. Which brings us to Ford: bullwhip still in hand, he's a little creakier, a lot grayer, but still twice the action hero of anyone in film today. With all the anticipation and hype leading up to the film's release, perhaps no reunion is sweeter than that of Ford with the role that fits him as snugly as that fedora hat. --Ellen A. Kim

Indiana Jones & The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, 21 Nov 2008
So very disaapointed in the film. Big yawn. I think Spielberg and Ford should have left fans to memories of greater films. The old bizzaz and sparkle wasn't there with Harrison Ford and with Spielbergs reputation am more than surprised he directed such a lame story. Sad, still the older ones are still about and they were the best. Time to hang up the rhino whip Indy.

D R E A D F U L what a shame!, 20 Nov 2008
I must admit to watching this film with great reluctance. How could you follow CRUSADE? It was the ideal full stop.
But no....they had to add this appalling PS!
My first cringe moment was brought on by the most unbelievably pathetic attempt at a Russian accent by acclaimed actress Cate Blanchette. John Cleese was far superior in WANDA.
The sets were almost on a par with Crossroads...totally insubstantial and plastic.
What else? Ridiculously twee story line, awful casting, no cameo performances worth mentioning and too much Botox. A total waste of 2 hours. Not one plus IMHO.
This movie should be boxed away with the Ark of the Covenant....

Childhoods End., 18 Nov 2008
At least the other movies had a tenuous grip on reality, the stunts and action sequences at least SEEMED plausible and the story lines were routed in established well known mythology. This was just too way over the top, like a cartoon. Karen Allen's grin and that god damn tarzan bit put the turd on the cake.

It's all about establishing internal logic with these films. This one had none.

The locations were dingy.


what happened???, 17 Nov 2008
Like most people I was intrigued at the prospect of another Indiana Jones movie after so long and I bought it in the first week of release on DVD. I also bought it because I felt a bit nostalgic and it was nice to be reminded of the days when it was so exciting to watch Indiana Jones as the "big movie" on the television at Christmas or Easter.

However, I am very disappointed with this film. It just comes across as a lazy, tired and unimaginative production. The film start off okay with a dramatic scene and there is a nice shot of the iconic hat that Dr Jones wears. The problems start with the special effects which are terrible. Look out for the scene where the Agent Spalko cut opens a shroud and you will not be impressed.

The plot is pretty weak. It seems to be borrowed from Stargate with a bit of The Mummy (yes, honestly) chucked in. A few of the scenes appear to be direct rip offs of The Mummy. Maybe because the previous Indiana movies focused on religion and this one doesn't, it doesn't have the same romantic quality about it. Another problem is the way Indiana's attitude to the plot is portrayed. He doesn't even seem to care about the mission whereas in the previous films epecially the Last Crusade he was deeply passionate about it. The central idea behind the story simply isn't clever enough. There is definitely no "wow" factor in this film. There isn't the same amount of investigating and clue hunting as there is in the previous films which leaves it feeling very very shallow. It's all very rushed and seems too easy. The ending leaves you feeling cheated as not much really happens and what little does happen is so predictable its awful.

The film is also hampered by the presence of the character of Mutt Williams. Indiana seems sidelined by this character and the script sees him being derided. The film feels like it should be called "Mutt Williams and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" which is not good. Indiana should of course always be the star attraction. In this type of film there isn't enough room for two action heroes. For some strange reason Shia LaBeouf has been dressed up as Fonzie and even acts like him in the film. Hopefully he will realise this was not a good career choice and will disassociate himself from the franchise. The film can't seem to decide if Indiana or Mutt should be the hero and this indecison really weakens the film even more. Another, let down is the inclusion of Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen). Indiana Jones has always been about the potency of the character's sexuality and his casual liasons. The idea though that he now has become a bit lovesick and always loved one woman all along is cheesy, ruining the mystique surrounding his character. It feels like writers just weren't bothered to give Indiana a new love interest and instead went for the easy option of sticking in an old character.

The inclusion of Mac (Ray Winstone) appears pointless as he does next to nothing apart from shout Indiana's name a few times. Quite why John Hurt, playing Prof. Oxley, agreed to appear in this below average film is beyond me. Cate Blanchett is pretty decent in the movie but because the script is poor she isn't given enough to do. Her talents are wasted here. Harrison Ford's talents are too wasted by the weak script, corny dialogue and dodgy stunt scenes.

The settings are not so special and to be honest it looks like the film was done on the cheap.

All those involved in this movie should be ashamed of themselves as the fans deserved better than this offering. Perhaps if the franchise wasn't viewed by the makers of the film as just a cash cow (an excuse to flog merchandise and generate sales from loyal fans), the film would be up to the standard of its predecessors.

I think most people will buy this movie out of curiosity, just to see if its as good as The Last Crusade etc. but will be dissatisfied with what they find.

Why are there so many detractors?, 17 Nov 2008
I really loved this film - as with the original 3 Indiana Jones movies, it contained some really good action sequences, alongside some ridiculous stunts, focussed on a supernatural archaelogical artefact, amusing jokes, and stereotypically insane bad guys (or girls). All in all, perfectly in line with the original franchise, so why all the complaints?

The movie's a bit of fun, and not supposed to be taken seriously, but is a brilliant bit of entertainment for an evening in. It was great to see Karen Allen brought back, and Harrison Ford, for all his 64 years, was in fine form. Shia LaBeouf was an absolute treasure to watch, and the big reveal - which is not aliens, as so many reviewers have claimed - was, if somewhat silly, at least no more so than the other 3 films were.

Well worth the watch for light entertainment - just don't expect it to be in any way serious!

More exciting than The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian continues the movie franchise based on C.S. Lewis' classic fantasy books. The movie picks up where the first left off... sort of. It's been a year since the Pevensie children--Peter (William Moseley), Susan (Anna Popplewell), Edmund (Skandar Keynes), and Lucy (Georgie Henley)--returned to England from Narnia, and they've just about resigned themselves to living their ordinary lives. But just like that, they're once again transported to a fantastical land, but one with a long-abandoned castle. It turns out that they are in Narnia again--and they themselves lived in that castle, but hundreds of years ago in Narnia time. They've been summoned back to help Prince Caspian (Stardust's Ben Barnes, resembling a young, cultured Keanu Reeves), the rightful heir to the throne who's become the target of his power-hungry uncle, King Miraz (Sergio Castellitto). And he's not the only one threatened: Miraz's people, the Telmarines, have pushed all the Narnians--the talking animals, the centaurs and other beasts, the walking trees--to the brink of extinction. Despite some alpha-male bickering, Peter and Caspian agree to fight Miraz alongside the remaining Narnians, including the dwarf Trumpkin (Peter Dinklage) and the swashbuckling mouse Reepicheep (voiced by Eddie Izzard). (Also appearing is Warwick Davis, who was in Willow and the 1989 BBC version of Prince Caspian.) But of course they most of all miss the noble lion, Aslan, who would have never let this happen to Narnia if he hadn't disappeared.

Prince Caspian is epic, evoking memories of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films. (Some of the battle elements may seem too familiar, but they were in Lewis's book.) And it's appropriate for kids (Reepicheep could have come out of a Shrek movie), though the tone is dark and there is a lot of death, albeit bloodless. After two successful films, Disney and Walden Media's franchise has proved successful enough that many of the characters are scheduled to return in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. --David Horiuchi, Amazon.com

Indiana Jones & The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, 21 Nov 2008
So very disaapointed in the film. Big yawn. I think Spielberg and Ford should have left fans to memories of greater films. The old bizzaz and sparkle wasn't there with Harrison Ford and with Spielbergs reputation am more than surprised he directed such a lame story. Sad, still the older ones are still about and they were the best. Time to hang up the rhino whip Indy.

D R E A D F U L what a shame!, 20 Nov 2008
I must admit to watching this film with great reluctance. How could you follow CRUSADE? It was the ideal full stop.
But no....they had to add this appalling PS!
My first cringe moment was brought on by the most unbelievably pathetic attempt at a Russian accent by acclaimed actress Cate Blanchette. John Cleese was far superior in WANDA.
The sets were almost on a par with Crossroads...totally insubstantial and plastic.
What else? Ridiculously twee story line, awful casting, no cameo performances worth mentioning and too much Botox. A total waste of 2 hours. Not one plus IMHO.
This movie should be boxed away with the Ark of the Covenant....

Childhoods End., 18 Nov 2008
At least the other movies had a tenuous grip on reality, the stunts and action sequences at least SEEMED plausible and the story lines were routed in established well known mythology. This was just too way over the top, like a cartoon. Karen Allen's grin and that god damn tarzan bit put the turd on the cake.

It's all about establishing internal logic with these films. This one had none.

The locations were dingy.


what happened???, 17 Nov 2008
Like most people I was intrigued at the prospect of another Indiana Jones movie after so long and I bought it in the first week of release on DVD. I also bought it because I felt a bit nostalgic and it was nice to be reminded of the days when it was so exciting to watch Indiana Jones as the "big movie" on the television at Christmas or Easter.

However, I am very disappointed with this film. It just comes across as a lazy, tired and unimaginative production. The film start off okay with a dramatic scene and there is a nice shot of the iconic hat that Dr Jones wears. The problems start with the special effects which are terrible. Look out for the scene where the Agent Spalko cut opens a shroud and you will not be impressed.

The plot is pretty weak. It seems to be borrowed from Stargate with a bit of The Mummy (yes, honestly) chucked in. A few of the scenes appear to be direct rip offs of The Mummy. Maybe because the previous Indiana movies focused on religion and this one doesn't, it doesn't have the same romantic quality about it. Another problem is the way Indiana's attitude to the plot is portrayed. He doesn't even seem to care about the mission whereas in the previous films epecially the Last Crusade he was deeply passionate about it. The central idea behind the story simply isn't clever enough. There is definitely no "wow" factor in this film. There isn't the same amount of investigating and clue hunting as there is in the previous films which leaves it feeling very very shallow. It's all very rushed and seems too easy. The ending leaves you feeling cheated as not much really happens and what little does happen is so predictable its awful.

The film is also hampered by the presence of the character of Mutt Williams. Indiana seems sidelined by this character and the script sees him being derided. The film feels like it should be called "Mutt Williams and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" which is not good. Indiana should of course always be the star attraction. In this type of film there isn't enough room for two action heroes. For some strange reason Shia LaBeouf has been dressed up as Fonzie and even acts like him in the film. Hopefully he will realise this was not a good career choice and will disassociate himself from the franchise. The film can't seem to decide if Indiana or Mutt should be the hero and this indecison really weakens the film even more. Another, let down is the inclusion of Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen). Indiana Jones has always been about the potency of the character's sexuality and his casual liasons. The idea though that he now has become a bit lovesick and always loved one woman all along is cheesy, ruining the mystique surrounding his character. It feels like writers just weren't bothered to give Indiana a new love interest and instead went for the easy option of sticking in an old character.

The inclusion of Mac (Ray Winstone) appears pointless as he does next to nothing apart from shout Indiana's name a few times. Quite why John Hurt, playing Prof. Oxley, agreed to appear in this below average film is beyond me. Cate Blanchett is pretty decent in the movie but because the script is poor she isn't given enough to do. Her talents are wasted here. Harrison Ford's talents are too wasted by the weak script, corny dialogue and dodgy stunt scenes.

The settings are not so special and to be honest it looks like the film was done on the cheap.

All those involved in this movie should be ashamed of themselves as the fans deserved better than this offering. Perhaps if the franchise wasn't viewed by the makers of the film as just a cash cow (an excuse to flog merchandise and generate sales from loyal fans), the film would be up to the standard of its predecessors.

I think most people will buy this movie out of curiosity, just to see if its as good as The Last Crusade etc. but will be dissatisfied with what they find.

Why are there so many detractors?, 17 Nov 2008
I really loved this film - as with the original 3 Indiana Jones movies, it contained some really good action sequences, alongside some ridiculous stunts, focussed on a supernatural archaelogical artefact, amusing jokes, and stereotypically insane bad guys (or girls). All in all, perfectly in line with the original franchise, so why all the complaints?

The movie's a bit of fun, and not supposed to be taken seriously, but is a brilliant bit of entertainment for an evening in. It was great to see Karen Allen brought back, and Harrison Ford, for all his 64 years, was in fine form. Shia LaBeouf was an absolute treasure to watch, and the big reveal - which is not aliens, as so many reviewers have claimed - was, if somewhat silly, at least no more so than the other 3 films were.

Well worth the watch for light entertainment - just don't expect it to be in any way serious!

Saved by the mice and Lucy, 19 Nov 2008
The first thing that I have to say is that this isn't a great movie,not by a long way.It's too long,boring in parts and I had the same problem that I had with the first film in the series.Namely,three of the four children are a charmless bunch bereft of any personality.Apart from Georgie Henley that is who plays Lucy.She gave the best performance in the first film and is also the best thing about 'Prince Caspian'.As the Prince,Ben Barnes certainly looks the part but his accent varies between Spanish,French and Scottish.I also felt that this film was aimed directly at the children's market.

So why have I given it a reasonable three stars?I was toying with giving it two but in fairness it does look great and some of the CGI is very well done.I especially liked the water giant near the end.If I could give this two and a half stars I would but because of Miss Henley,the water giant and the mice(cute) I will give it a maybe too generous three.This is not a movie that I would watch again but children will probably love it.

Good sequel, 19 Nov 2008
I was looking forward to this movie, this was one of the iconic books from my childhood. I have to say that I very much enjoyed it, however maybe not as much as the first film. The filming was excellent, with beautiful backdrops and surroundings, very good CGI and good acting. It's been so long since I read the books however, that I can't remember if this was faithful to the original though... will have to re-read them I think! The things that let it down for me were the comedy elements, the mouse-knights and alike fitted very much with a Disney film, however I thought that they were not necessary, and detracted from the story. Word of warning though, not sure if I would let very small children see it though as there is quite a lot of violent deaths albeit no blood.

Prince Caspian, 18 Nov 2008
This has to be one of the most disappointing films I've ever seen. The books enthralled me as a child and, as an adult I have read them to children in my family who were equally delighted by them, so the liberties taken with the story were a total disaster for us.

It starts off well enough, but then the film-makers apparently think they have to add plot twists with a very silly a subtext where Caspian & Peter are so jealous of eachother that they almost bring about the downfall of Narnia by it.

Yet again Hollywood has tinkered with the original and wonderful story, and lost the magic on the way, and because the special effects are fantastic it's a real let down. This is not a film I'll be buying or would want to own under any circumstances. Don't waste your money.

what happened to..., 16 Nov 2008
I did enjoy the film - and thought it stood up well against The Lion et al, but what happened to 'a Horse and his boy'? (The 3 chronicle) also will we go back to the Magician's Nephew at a later stage?


Excellent family entertainment, 13 Nov 2008
I'll keep it short and sweet - great performances, great effects, true to th ebook while still fleshing out the story and characters a little more. Fantastically fun action adventure that's suitable for all the family without patronising kids or sanitising the darker elements of the story. Parents should not object to being forced to sit through it with the kids!

The Dark Knight arrives with tremendous hype (best superhero movie ever? posthumous Oscar for Heath Ledger?), and incredibly, it lives up to all of it. But calling it the best superhero movie ever seems like faint praise, since part of what makes the movie great--in addition to pitch-perfect casting, outstanding writing, and a compelling vision--is that it bypasses the normal fantasy element of the superhero genre and makes it all terrifyingly real. Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) is Gotham City's new district attorney, charged with cleaning up the crime rings that have paralysed the city. He enters an uneasy alliance with the young police lieutenant, Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), and Batman (Christian Bale), the caped vigilante who seems to trust only Gordon--and whom only Gordon seems to trust. They make progress until a psychotic and deadly new player enters the game: the Joker (Heath Ledger), who offers the crime bosses a solution--kill the Batman. Further complicating matters is that Dent is now dating Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal, after Katie Holmes turned down the chance to reprise her role), the longtime love of Batman's alter ego, Bruce Wayne.

In his last completed role before his tragic death, Ledger is fantastic as the Joker, a volcanic, truly frightening force of evil. And he sets the tone of the movie: the world is a dark, dangerous place where there are no easy choices. Eckhart and Oldman also shine, but as good as Bale is, his character turns out rather bland in comparison (not uncommon for heroes facing more colorful villains). Director/co-writer Christopher Nolan (Memento) follows his critically acclaimed Batman Begins with an even better sequel that sets itself apart from notable superhero movies like Spider-Man 2 and Iron Man because of its sheer emotional impact and striking sense of realism--there are no suspension-of-disbelief superpowers here. At 152 minutes, it's a shade too long, and it's much too intense for kids. But for most movie fans--and not just superhero fans--The Dark Knight is a film for the ages. --David Horiuchi

Indiana Jones & The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, 21 Nov 2008
So very disaapointed in the film. Big yawn. I think Spielberg and Ford should have left fans to memories of greater films. The old bizzaz and sparkle wasn't there with Harrison Ford and with Spielbergs reputation am more than surprised he directed such a lame story. Sad, still the older ones are still about and they were the best. Time to hang up the rhino whip Indy.

D R E A D F U L what a shame!, 20 Nov 2008
I must admit to watching this film with great reluctance. How could you follow CRUSADE? It was the ideal full stop.
But no....they had to add this appalling PS!
My first cringe moment was brought on by the most unbelievably pathetic attempt at a Russian accent by acclaimed actress Cate Blanchette. John Cleese was far superior in WANDA.
The sets were almost on a par with Crossroads...totally insubstantial and plastic.
What else? Ridiculously twee story line, awful casting, no cameo performances worth mentioning and too much Botox. A total waste of 2 hours. Not one plus IMHO.
This movie should be boxed away with the Ark of the Covenant....

Childhoods End., 18 Nov 2008
At least the other movies had a tenuous grip on reality, the stunts and action sequences at least SEEMED plausible and the story lines were routed in established well known mythology. This was just too way over the top, like a cartoon. Karen Allen's grin and that god damn tarzan bit put the turd on the cake.

It's all about establishing internal logic with these films. This one had none.

The locations were dingy.


what happened???, 17 Nov 2008
Like most people I was intrigued at the prospect of another Indiana Jones movie after so long and I bought it in the first week of release on DVD. I also bought it because I felt a bit nostalgic and it was nice to be reminded of the days when it was so exciting to watch Indiana Jones as the "big movie" on the television at Christmas or Easter.

However, I am very disappointed with this film. It just comes across as a lazy, tired and unimaginative production. The film start off okay with a dramatic scene and there is a nice shot of the iconic hat that Dr Jones wears. The problems start with the special effects which are terrible. Look out for the scene where the Agent Spalko cut opens a shroud and you will not be impressed.

The plot is pretty weak. It seems to be borrowed from Stargate with a bit of The Mummy (yes, honestly) chucked in. A few of the scenes appear to be direct rip offs of The Mummy. Maybe because the previous Indiana movies focused on religion and this one doesn't, it doesn't have the same romantic quality about it. Another problem is the way Indiana's attitude to the plot is portrayed. He doesn't even seem to care about the mission whereas in the previous films epecially the Last Crusade he was deeply passionate about it. The central idea behind the story simply isn't clever enough. There is definitely no "wow" factor in this film. There isn't the same amount of investigating and clue hunting as there is in the previous films which leaves it feeling very very shallow. It's all very rushed and seems too easy. The ending leaves you feeling cheated as not much really happens and what little does happen is so predictable its awful.

The film is also hampered by the presence of the character of Mutt Williams. Indiana seems sidelined by this character and the script sees him being derided. The film feels like it should be called "Mutt Williams and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" which is not good. Indiana should of course always be the star attraction. In this type of film there isn't enough room for two action heroes. For some strange reason Shia LaBeouf has been dressed up as Fonzie and even acts like him in the film. Hopefully he will realise this was not a good career choice and will disassociate himself from the franchise. The film can't seem to decide if Indiana or Mutt should be the hero and this indecison really weakens the film even more. Another, let down is the inclusion of Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen). Indiana Jones has always been about the potency of the character's sexuality and his casual liasons. The idea though that he now has become a bit lovesick and always loved one woman all along is cheesy, ruining the mystique surrounding his character. It feels like writers just weren't bothered to give Indiana a new love interest and instead went for the easy option of sticking in an old character.

The inclusion of Mac (Ray Winstone) appears pointless as he does next to nothing apart from shout Indiana's name a few times. Quite why John Hurt, playing Prof. Oxley, agreed to appear in this below average film is beyond me. Cate Blanchett is pretty decent in the movie but because the script is poor she isn't given enough to do. Her talents are wasted here. Harrison Ford's talents are too wasted by the weak script, corny dialogue and dodgy stunt scenes.

The settings are not so special and to be honest it looks like the film was done on the cheap.

All those involved in this movie should be ashamed of themselves as the fans deserved better than this offering. Perhaps if the franchise wasn't viewed by the makers of the film as just a cash cow (an excuse to flog merchandise and generate sales from loyal fans), the film would be up to the standard of its predecessors.

I think most people will buy this movie out of curiosity, just to see if its as good as The Last Crusade etc. but will be dissatisfied with what they find.

Why are there so many detractors?, 17 Nov 2008
I really loved this film - as with the original 3 Indiana Jones movies, it contained some really good action sequences, alongside some ridiculous stunts, focussed on a supernatural archaelogical artefact, amusing jokes, and stereotypically insane bad guys (or girls). All in all, perfectly in line with the original franchise, so why all the complaints?

The movie's a bit of fun, and not supposed to be taken seriously, but is a brilliant bit of entertainment for an evening in. It was great to see Karen Allen brought back, and Harrison Ford, for all his 64 years, was in fine form. Shia LaBeouf was an absolute treasure to watch, and the big reveal - which is not aliens, as so many reviewers have claimed - was, if somewhat silly, at least no more so than the other 3 films were.

Well worth the watch for light entertainment - just don't expect it to be in any way serious!

Saved by the mice and Lucy, 19 Nov 2008
The first thing that I have to say is that this isn't a great movie,not by a long way.It's too long,boring in parts and I had the same problem that I had with the first film in the series.Namely,three of the four children are a charmless bunch bereft of any personality.Apart from Georgie Henley that is who plays Lucy.She gave the best performance in the first film and is also the best thing about 'Prince Caspian'.As the Prince,Ben Barnes certainly looks the part but his accent varies between Spanish,French and Scottish.I also felt that this film was aimed directly at the children's market.

So why have I given it a reasonable three stars?I was toying with giving it two but in fairness it does look great and some of the CGI is very well done.I especially liked the water giant near the end.If I could give this two and a half stars I would but because of Miss Henley,the water giant and the mice(cute) I will give it a maybe too generous three.This is not a movie that I would watch again but children will probably love it.

Good sequel, 19 Nov 2008
I was looking forward to this movie, this was one of the iconic books from my childhood. I have to say that I very much enjoyed it, however maybe not as much as the first film. The filming was excellent, with beautiful backdrops and surroundings, very good CGI and good acting. It's been so long since I read the books however, that I can't remember if this was faithful to the original though... will have to re-read them I think! The things that let it down for me were the comedy elements, the mouse-knights and alike fitted very much with a Disney film, however I thought that they were not necessary, and detracted from the story. Word of warning though, not sure if I would let very small children see it though as there is quite a lot of violent deaths albeit no blood.

Prince Caspian, 18 Nov 2008
This has to be one of the most disappointing films I've ever seen. The books enthralled me as a child and, as an adult I have read them to children in my family who were equally delighted by them, so the liberties taken with the story were a total disaster for us.

It starts off well enough, but then the film-makers apparently think they have to add plot twists with a very silly a subtext where Caspian & Peter are so jealous of eachother that they almost bring about the downfall of Narnia by it.

Yet again Hollywood has tinkered with the original and wonderful story, and lost the magic on the way, and because the special effects are fantastic it's a real let down. This is not a film I'll be buying or would want to own under any circumstances. Don't waste your money.

what happened to..., 16 Nov 2008
I did enjoy the film - and thought it stood up well against The Lion et al, but what happened to 'a Horse and his boy'? (The 3 chronicle) also will we go back to the Magician's Nephew at a later stage?


Excellent family entertainment, 13 Nov 2008
I'll keep it short and sweet - great performances, great effects, true to th ebook while still fleshing out the story and characters a little more. Fantastically fun action adventure that's suitable for all the family without patronising kids or sanitising the darker elements of the story. Parents should not object to being forced to sit through it with the kids!

Great movie - whats with the voice?, 18 Nov 2008
Great film, awesome performance by the Joker and 2 face. However, there are 2 reasons why i only gave this film 4 stars.

1. Batmans voice is ridiculous. Its the worse put on gravely voice in film and really grinds on me, esp the last scene with the joker.

2. Why oh why is that goon Caine, Alfred the butler. Cockney butler for one of the worlds richest tycoons - unlikely. I prefered Michael Gough, a classy English accent.

More than worth the hype, 13 Nov 2008
The massive media focus on Heath Ledger's tragic death has in its way done this film a disservice - sure, it was publicity, and Ledger's performance really is that astoundingly brilliant, but it tends to overshadow the fact that this entire film is just as astoundingly brilliant.

From start to finish, this is an incredible, dark and tortured tale of a man who realises that in order to truly be a hero, he must allow himself to be painted the villain. Christian Bale improves on his first outing as Batman to bring out these dilemmas and the conflict between his public images (both as millionaire playboy and vigilante) and private desires - if they do another one I really hope he agrees to reprise the role. The story is involving, Bruce Wayne's struggle to understand and thus effectively combat a nemesis whose only motivation is chaos for its own sake is an engaging and intriguing struggle and the action sequences are nothing short of spectacular. The whole film is visually stunning and incredibly well acted on all counts. The fall of Harvey Dent/Two Face is especially well played out and there is not a single moment of this film that is not enthralling. It constantly asks difficult questions of us and our morality - the big finale with the two ships is a great one, though I shan't spoil it with details - and the whole thing is just pitch perfect throughout. Chris Nolan has done a stellar job here.

As for Heath Ledger... I was always a big fan of him, from his early teen fare right through to the end, but this is a performance beyond what even I as a fan thought him capable of. His Joker is sadistic, cruel and yet perversely funny, and he is a revelation. It just makes me sad to think what he could have been doing in ten or twenty years' time if this was the calibre of work he was managing as a younger actor.

So when it comes to The Dark Knight, I say don't trust the hype - for this movie far exceeds it. Hands down the best comic book adaptation I've seen, and I do have a penchant for them (especially for a girl)

An absolute legend of a film, 12 Nov 2008
Right, where to start?! As you can probably tell from the title of this review, I was extremely impressed with this film. As a fan of superheroes in general from a very young age to this day, I was horrified by the absolutely atrocious protrayal of batman by the likes of George Clooney and Val Kilmer. For the most part, I consider these two to be good actors but the script was just sooooo terrible that they could do nothing to make the films any good!
When I heard that Batman Begins was going to return to the comic's dark and gritty roots, it was like a breath of fresh air. Needless to say, I thought Batman Begins was a fantastic film but I must admit that when I heard about the Dark Knight, I doubted it would live up to the standard set by its predecessor. Thankfully, I was wrong as the second installment more than equals Batman Begins.
Bale is brilliant as always as the hero Batman but the true star of the show has to be the late Heath Ledger. Many may think it was all hype but of those of you who haven't seen the film and think it's being exagerated, buy this and see for yourself. I won't ruin too much of the plot but I will say that it is far far darker than anything you may have seen in the genre before. The joy of the batman films is that they can be made serious without them seeming like a mockery, as has been done before with super-hero films. The lack of insane superpowers obviously makes this a much easier feat to achieve as you find yourself believing that it could really happen!
Right, so there's some positive stuff, now for the negative. I have only two gripes with this excellent film:
1) Morgan Freeman and Michael Cain were sadly neglected, which is almost criminal when dealing with actors of their calibre
2) Two-Face only appears in earnest for about 20 mins, which while being understandable considering the presence of the joker and the storyline in general, is a shame because the character was done so very well.

Let's face it, two bad points in a film this long? That's pretty good going!! One more thing as a word of warning: this film as been given a rating of 12. Now, I want to meet the people who did that and get their heads examined. DO NOT let anyone below the age of 15 see this, the sight of Two Face alone will give a 12 year old nightmares for months and he/she will definitely develop a fear of clowns!!



"You wanted me,here I am", 11 Nov 2008
My favourite superhero has always been Batman by a long way.It's the dark edge to him,the turmoil that makes him a little different.I thought that the previous movie 'Batman Begins' was a fine effort at re-inventing the franchise away from the almost comic to the intensity that is required nowadays.I read so many glowing tributes about 'The Dark Knight' that I looked forward to seeing it with keen interest.When it was over I thought it was good but not quite as fantastic as I'd hoped.

The acting was pretty much first rate.Christian Bale is clearly suited to the role,Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are as reliable as ever and Aaron Eckhart was better than I expected him to be as Harvey Dent.Probably the most forgetabble character was Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel.Obviously,the person that got the most plaudits was Heath Ledger as The Joker.Yes,he was good but in all honesty it was a showcase part and he was bound to stand out.Was he any better than Gary Oldman as Gordon?The honest answer is no he wasn't.Oldman's role was far less showey
but he excelled in every scene he was in and deserves equal praise.There are many well executed action scenes and there is no doubt it is a well made movie.

Why I can't give this five stars is because the movie is too long and the voice of Batman sounds just like the guy off the Carlsberg ads!It does sound a bit daft and should be toned down for the sequel.I think four stars is a fair mark and this is a DVD that I will definitely purchase.

Instantaneous classic, 08 Nov 2008
No much to add to other 'five-star' reviews. This is a classic and by miles the best comic book based film ever made. I would like Nolan to revisit the character once again but after having created such a brilliant plot, character development and poetic ending, maybe he shouldn't...

Just brilliant!

The Dark Knight arrives with tremendous hype (best superhero movie ever? posthumous Oscar for Heath Ledger?), and incredibly, it lives up to all of it. But calling it the best superhero movie ever seems like faint praise, since part of what makes the movie great--in addition to pitch-perfect casting, outstanding writing, and a compelling vision--is that it bypasses the normal fantasy element of the superhero genre and makes it all terrifyingly real. Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) is Gotham City's new district attorney, charged with cleaning up the crime rings that have paralysed the city. He enters an uneasy alliance with the young police lieutenant, Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), and Batman (Christian Bale), the caped vigilante who seems to trust only Gordon--and whom only Gordon seems to trust. They make progress until a psychotic and deadly new player enters the game: the Joker (Heath Ledger), who offers the crime bosses a solution--kill the Batman. Further complicating matters is that Dent is now dating Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal, after Katie Holmes turned down the chance to reprise her role), the longtime love of Batman's alter ego, Bruce Wayne.

In his last completed role before his tragic death, Ledger is fantastic as the Joker, a volcanic, truly frightening force of evil. And he sets the tone of the movie: the world is a dark, dangerous place where there are no easy choices. Eckhart and Oldman also shine, but as good as Bale is, his character turns out rather bland in comparison (not uncommon for heroes facing more colorful villains). Director/co-writer Christopher Nolan (Memento) follows his critically acclaimed Batman Begins with an even better sequel that sets itself apart from notable superhero movies like Spider-Man 2 and Iron Man because of its sheer emotional impact and striking sense of realism--there are no suspension-of-disbelief superpowers here. At 152 minutes, it's a shade too long, and it's much too intense for kids. But for most movie fans--and not just superhero fans--The Dark Knight is a film for the ages. --David Horiuchi

Indiana Jones & The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, 21 Nov 2008
So very disaapointed in the film. Big yawn. I think Spielberg and Ford should have left fans to memories of greater films. The old bizzaz and sparkle wasn't there with Harrison Ford and with Spielbergs reputation am more than surprised he directed such a lame story. Sad, still the older ones are still about and they were the best. Time to hang up the rhino whip Indy.

D R E A D F U L what a shame!, 20 Nov 2008
I must admit to watching this film with great reluctance. How could you follow CRUSADE? It was the ideal full stop.
But no....they had to add this appalling PS!
My first cringe moment was brought on by the most unbelievably pathetic attempt at a Russian accent by acclaimed actress Cate Blanchette. John Cleese was far superior in WANDA.
The sets were almost on a par with Crossroads...totally insubstantial and plastic.
What else? Ridiculously twee story line, awful casting, no cameo performances worth mentioning and too much Botox. A total waste of 2 hours. Not one plus IMHO.
This movie should be boxed away with the Ark of the Covenant....

Childhoods End., 18 Nov 2008
At least the other movies had a tenuous grip on reality, the stunts and action sequences at least SEEMED plausible and the story lines were routed in established well known mythology. This was just too way over the top, like a cartoon. Karen Allen's grin and that god damn tarzan bit put the turd on the cake.

It's all about establishing internal logic with these films. This one had none.

The locations were dingy.


what happened???, 17 Nov 2008
Like most people I was intrigued at the prospect of another Indiana Jones movie after so long and I bought it in the first week of release on DVD. I also bought it because I felt a bit nostalgic and it was nice to be reminded of the days when it was so exciting to watch Indiana Jones as the "big movie" on the television at Christmas or Easter.

However, I am very disappointed with this film. It just comes across as a lazy, tired and unimaginative production. The film start off okay with a dramatic scene and there is a nice shot of the iconic hat that Dr Jones wears. The problems start with the special effects which are terrible. Look out for the scene where the Agent Spalko cut opens a shroud and you will not be impressed.

The plot is pretty weak. It seems to be borrowed from Stargate with a bit of The Mummy (yes, honestly) chucked in. A few of the scenes appear to be direct rip offs of The Mummy. Maybe because the previous Indiana movies focused on religion and this one doesn't, it doesn't have the same romantic quality about it. Another problem is the way Indiana's attitude to the plot is portrayed. He doesn't even seem to care about the mission whereas in the previous films epecially the Last Crusade he was deeply passionate about it. The central idea behind the story simply isn't clever enough. There is definitely no "wow" factor in this film. There isn't the same amount of investigating and clue hunting as there is in the previous films which leaves it feeling very very shallow. It's all very rushed and seems too easy. The ending leaves you feeling cheated as not much really happens and what little does happen is so predictable its awful.

The film is also hampered by the presence of the character of Mutt Williams. Indiana seems sidelined by this character and the script sees him being derided. The film feels like it should be called "Mutt Williams and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" which is not good. Indiana should of course always be the star attraction. In this type of film there isn't enough room for two action heroes. For some strange reason Shia LaBeouf has been dressed up as Fonzie and even acts like him in the film. Hopefully he will realise this was not a good career choice and will disassociate himself from the franchise. The film can't seem to decide if Indiana or Mutt should be the hero and this indecison really weakens the film even more. Another, let down is the inclusion of Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen). Indiana Jones has always been about the potency of the character's sexuality and his casual liasons. The idea though that he now has become a bit lovesick and always loved one woman all along is cheesy, ruining the mystique surrounding his character. It feels like writers just weren't bothered to give Indiana a new love interest and instead went for the easy option of sticking in an old character.

The inclusion of Mac (Ray Winstone) appears pointless as he does next to nothing apart from shout Indiana's name a few times. Quite why John Hurt, playing Prof. Oxley, agreed to appear in this below average film is beyond me. Cate Blanchett is pretty decent in the movie but because the script is poor she isn't given enough to do. Her talents are wasted here. Harrison Ford's talents are too wasted by the weak script, corny dialogue and dodgy stunt scenes.

The settings are not so special and to be honest it looks like the film was done on the cheap.

All those involved in this movie should be ashamed of themselves as the fans deserved better than this offering. Perhaps if the franchise wasn't viewed by the makers of the film as just a cash cow (an excuse to flog merchandise and generate sales from loyal fans), the film would be up to the standard of its predecessors.

I think most people will buy this movie out of curiosity, just to see if its as good as The Last Crusade etc. but will be dissatisfied with what they find.

Why are there so many detractors?, 17 Nov 2008
I really loved this film - as with the original 3 Indiana Jones movies, it contained some really good action sequences, alongside some ridiculous stunts, focussed on a supernatural archaelogical artefact, amusing jokes, and stereotypically insane bad guys (or girls). All in all, perfectly in line with the original franchise, so why all the complaints?

The movie's a bit of fun, and not supposed to be taken seriously, but is a brilliant bit of entertainment for an evening in. It was great to see Karen Allen brought back, and Harrison Ford, for all his 64 years, was in fine form. Shia LaBeouf was an absolute treasure to watch, and the big reveal - which is not aliens, as so many reviewers have claimed - was, if somewhat silly, at least no more so than the other 3 films were.

Well worth the watch for light entertainment - just don't expect it to be in any way serious!

Saved by the mice and Lucy, 19 Nov 2008
The first thing that I have to say is that this isn't a great movie,not by a long way.It's too long,boring in parts and I had the same problem that I had with the first film in the series.Namely,three of the four children are a charmless bunch bereft of any personality.Apart from Georgie Henley that is who plays Lucy.She gave the best performance in the first film and is also the best thing about 'Prince Caspian'.As the Prince,Ben Barnes certainly looks the part but his accent varies between Spanish,French and Scottish.I also felt that this film was aimed directly at the children's market.

So why have I given it a reasonable three stars?I was toying with giving it two but in fairness it does look great and some of the CGI is very well done.I especially liked the water giant near the end.If I could give this two and a half stars I would but because of Miss Henley,the water giant and the mice(cute) I will give it a maybe too generous three.This is not a movie that I would watch again but children will probably love it.

Good sequel, 19 Nov 2008
I was looking forward to this movie, this was one of the iconic books from my childhood. I have to say that I very much enjoyed it, however maybe not as much as the first film. The filming was excellent, with beautiful backdrops and surroundings, very good CGI and good acting. It's been so long since I read the books however, that I can't remember if this was faithful to the original though... will have to re-read them I think! The things that let it down for me were the comedy elements, the mouse-knights and alike fitted very much with a Disney film, however I thought that they were not necessary, and detracted from the story. Word of warning though, not sure if I would let very small children see it though as there is quite a lot of violent deaths albeit no blood.

Prince Caspian, 18 Nov 2008
This has to be one of the most disappointing films I've ever seen. The books enthralled me as a child and, as an adult I have read them to children in my family who were equally delighted by them, so the liberties taken with the story were a total disaster for us.

It starts off well enough, but then the film-makers apparently think they have to add plot twists with a very silly a subtext where Caspian & Peter are so jealous of eachother that they almost bring about the downfall of Narnia by it.

Yet again Hollywood has tinkered with the original and wonderful story, and lost the magic on the way, and because the special effects are fantastic it's a real let down. This is not a film I'll be buying or would want to own under any circumstances. Don't waste your money.

what happened to..., 16 Nov 2008
I did enjoy the film - and thought it stood up well against The Lion et al, but what happened to 'a Horse and his boy'? (The 3 chronicle) also will we go back to the Magician's Nephew at a later stage?


Excellent family entertainment, 13 Nov 2008
I'll keep it short and sweet - great performances, great effects, true to th ebook while still fleshing out the story and characters a little more. Fantastically fun action adventure that's suitable for all the family without patronising kids or sanitising the darker elements of the story. Parents should not object to being forced to sit through it with the kids!

Great movie - whats with the voice?, 18 Nov 2008
Great film, awesome performance by the Joker and 2 face. However, there are 2 reasons why i only gave this film 4 stars.

1. Batmans voice is ridiculous. Its the worse put on gravely voice in film and really grinds on me, esp the last scene with the joker.

2. Why oh why is that goon Caine, Alfred the butler. Cockney butler for one of the worlds richest tycoons - unlikely. I prefered Michael Gough, a classy English accent.

More than worth the hype, 13 Nov 2008
The massive media focus on Heath Ledger's tragic death has in its way done this film a disservice - sure, it was publicity, and Ledger's performance really is that astoundingly brilliant, but it tends to overshadow the fact that this entire film is just as astoundingly brilliant.

From start to finish, this is an incredible, dark and tortured tale of a man who realises that in order to truly be a hero, he must allow himself to be painted the villain. Christian Bale improves on his first outing as Batman to bring out these dilemmas and the conflict between his public images (both as millionaire playboy and vigilante) and private desires - if they do another one I really hope he agrees to reprise the role. The story is involving, Bruce Wayne's struggle to understand and thus effectively combat a nemesis whose only motivation is chaos for its own sake is an engaging and intriguing struggle and the action sequences are nothing short of spectacular. The whole film is visually stunning and incredibly well acted on all counts. The fall of Harvey Dent/Two Face is especially well played out and there is not a single moment of this film that is not enthralling. It constantly asks difficult questions of us and our morality - the big finale with the two ships is a great one, though I shan't spoil it with details - and the whole thing is just pitch perfect throughout. Chris Nolan has done a stellar job here.

As for Heath Ledger... I was always a big fan of him, from his early teen fare right through to the end, but this is a performance beyond what even I as a fan thought him capable of. His Joker is sadistic, cruel and yet perversely funny, and he is a revelation. It just makes me sad to think what he could have been doing in ten or twenty years' time if this was the calibre of work he was managing as a younger actor.

So when it comes to The Dark Knight, I say don't trust the hype - for this movie far exceeds it. Hands down the best comic book adaptation I've seen, and I do have a penchant for them (especially for a girl)

An absolute legend of a film, 12 Nov 2008
Right, where to start?! As you can probably tell from the title of this review, I was extremely impressed with this film. As a fan of superheroes in general from a very young age to this day, I was horrified by the absolutely atrocious protrayal of batman by the likes of George Clooney and Val Kilmer. For the most part, I consider these two to be good actors but the script was just sooooo terrible that they could do nothing to make the films any good!
When I heard that Batman Begins was going to return to the comic's dark and gritty roots, it was like a breath of fresh air. Needless to say, I thought Batman Begins was a fantastic film but I must admit that when I heard about the Dark Knight, I doubted it would live up to the standard set by its predecessor. Thankfully, I was wrong as the second installment more than equals Batman Begins.
Bale is brilliant as always as the hero Batman but the true star of the show has to be the late Heath Ledger. Many may think it was all hype but of those of you who haven't seen the film and think it's being exagerated, buy this and see for yourself. I won't ruin too much of the plot but I will say that it is far far darker than anything you may have seen in the genre before. The joy of the batman films is that they can be made serious without them seeming like a mockery, as has been done before with super-hero films. The lack of insane superpowers obviously makes this a much easier feat to achieve as you find yourself believing that it could really happen!
Right, so there's some positive stuff, now for the negative. I have only two gripes with this excellent film:
1) Morgan Freeman and Michael Cain were sadly neglected, which is almost criminal when dealing with actors of their calibre
2) Two-Face only appears in earnest for about 20 mins, which while being understandable considering the presence of the joker and the storyline in general, is a shame because the character was done so very well.

Let's face it, two bad points in a film this long? That's pretty good going!! One more thing as a word of warning: this film as been given a rating of 12. Now, I want to meet the people who did that and get their heads examined. DO NOT let anyone below the age of 15 see this, the sight of Two Face alone will give a 12 year old nightmares for months and he/she will definitely develop a fear of clowns!!



"You wanted me,here I am", 11 Nov 2008
My favourite superhero has always been Batman by a long way.It's the dark edge to him,the turmoil that makes him a little different.I thought that the previous movie 'Batman Begins' was a fine effort at re-inventing the franchise away from the almost comic to the intensity that is required nowadays.I read so many glowing tributes about 'The Dark Knight' that I looked forward to seeing it with keen interest.When it was over I thought it was good but not quite as fantastic as I'd hoped.

The acting was pretty much first rate.Christian Bale is clearly suited to the role,Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are as reliable as ever and Aaron Eckhart was better than I expected him to be as Harvey Dent.Probably the most forgetabble character was Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel.Obviously,the person that got the most plaudits was Heath Ledger as The Joker.Yes,he was good but in all honesty it was a showcase part and he was bound to stand out.Was he any better than Gary Oldman as Gordon?The honest answer is no he wasn't.Oldman's role was far less showey
but he excelled in every scene he was in and deserves equal praise.There are many well executed action scenes and there is no doubt it is a well made movie.

Why I can't give this five stars is because the movie is too long and the voice of Batman sounds just like the guy off the Carlsberg ads!It does sound a bit daft and should be toned down for the sequel.I think four stars is a fair mark and this is a DVD that I will definitely purchase.

Instantaneous classic, 08 Nov 2008
No much to add to other 'five-star' reviews. This is a classic and by miles the best comic book based film ever made. I would like Nolan to revisit the character once again but after having created such a brilliant plot, character development and poetic ending, maybe he shouldn't...

Just brilliant!


More the Joker's story then Batmans., 28 Oct 2008
Could the movie live up to the hype? Most definitely. Buy this film if only to see Heath Ledger's portrayal of Batman's arch-enemy the Joker. His performance is worth the cost of the blu-ray alone. I always though that Jack Nicholson's performance would set the standard, but Heath Ledger's Joker knocks that into a hat.

This is a continuance of the Dark Knight created originally by Bob Kane and later re-invented by Frank Miller. Batman ain't Mr NIce Guy and nor should he be. In fact Batman comes across as harder and possibly mentally unstable but then again to wear latex and a cape you have to be a bit mad.

If I found one fault in the film, it would be that it is too long. I would have rather this had been extended and made in too parts like Kill Bill. That worked so well and I am sure this would have been just as good and a continuing legacy to Heath Ledgers best performance.

A film that lives up to the hype, 23 Oct 2008
Firstly, this film as the title suggests is one of the few to live up to the hype since the Lord of the Rings. The acting was amazing, the effects were superb, and somehow although this is a superhero, it is done so well that you could imagine Batman and his enemies are real unlike the original movies where they are very comic book. For instance, compare the Joker against the 1989 movie. Both excellent in their own right, but the phsycotic Ledger is much more real than the comic book villain of Nicholson. The same can be said of Gotham itself and Gordon. My only (small) criticism of this movie was the length and number of bad guys. I think that it could maybe have been split into 2 movies, 1 bad guy in each. Doesn't stop it from being a 5 star movie for me!

Best movie since The Godfather., 15 Oct 2008

This film is so great that even the critics are comparing it to the Godfather, Goodfellas, Raiders of the lost ark, Scarface and many of the other classic movie hits in the world.

Now for any film to reach up to that callaber has to have the best acting, the best storyline and volience and The Dark Knight definately has them you dont even need to be a comic book fan to love this film but this is the most confirmed best comic book film this decade expecially much more better and more relistic than the spiderman films, and the superman films,
this movie also redifines comic book movie to the relistic world.....
"welcome to a world without rules".

The villians: Joker
Two-face
scarecrow (cameo)

Destined to be a Bestseller!, 08 Oct 2008
I know this is not out yet on Blu-Ray but i have watched the first 5 mins
of Dark Knight on Blu-Ray as it is on the special features on my Batman Begins Blu-Ray disc and judging by that this will be probably a must own title.

Honestly the opening scene of Dark Knight on Blu Ray on a big high definition TV with the sound cranked up is a jaw dropping experience!


HEATH LEDGER'S PARTING GIFT, 05 Oct 2008
Brokeback Mountain [2006] (REGION 1) (NTSC)
Viewed the film on the 'big - screen. Waiting for the DVD release. The Title of the film should have been,"Heath Ledger as the Joker". As always
Christian Bale, is the worst Batman in Moviedom. I shall give you a small example: In both 'The Batman Begins' and 'Dark Knight',why on earth does the Batman speak fluently, as Bruce Wayne, but the moment he dons his costume, starts talking, like he had severe Laryngitis? I haven't seen a single 'Batman' starting from Michael Keaton to Val Kilmer to George Clooney talk like this,in their portrayals as 'Batman'. Heath! Heath! Heath! He IS the only reason that made me visit the cinema. Already rumors are adrift that Heath was adviced not to take on the role, by someone, none other than, Jack Nicholson himself. It seems Mr.Nicholson warned him that the role was too dark.Heath, we will all miss you.

A genuinely epic achievement, the 10-part World War II drama Band of Brothers is a television series that makes big-screen Hollywood war movies look small in comparison. Based on the book by historian Stephen Ambrose, the series follows the US 101st Airborne Division's "Easy" E-Company from initial training through D-Day and across Holland, Belgium, Germany and Austria until the end of the war. Coproduced by Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks, the series take its initial inspiration from Saving Private Ryan and borrows that film's visceral visual approach to combat scenes using hand-held camerawork and de-saturated photography. But where Band of Brothers excels is in its scrupulous attention to the realities of military life (retired US Marine Captain Dale Dye, who also co-stars, is the man to credit).

After the high drama of the parachute drop on D-Day, Easy's greatest trial comes during the Battle of the Bulge, when they are besieged at Bastogne in the depths of winter. In one of the most harrowing and credible depictions of war ever committed to film we see the men enduring the repeated artillery attacks of the German forces and experience, if only vicariously, some of the sheer terror of the assault, while being humbled by the soldiers' courage and determination. Such feelings are enhanced by the series' masterstroke--bookend interviews with the surviving members of Easy Company, who talk with barely suppressed emotion of the experiences we see recreated. The endorsement of these veterans elevates Band of Brothers beyond any mere "war film"--its extraordinary achievement is that it shows the horror and savagery of war without gloss or jingoism, and yet celebrates the fraternal bonds and dogged heroism of the men who fought.

On the DVD: Band of Brothers arrives handsomely packaged in a six-disc box set with two episodes on each of the first five discs. Sound (Dolby 5.1) and picture (1.78:1 widescreen) only enhance the series' epic credentials. Disc 6 contains all the extras, the meatiest of which is the marvellous 80-minute documentary "We Stand Alone Together" about the real men of Easy Company. There's also a first-rate, genuinely interesting 30-minute "making of" feature about actor boot camp, visual effects and blowing up fake trees among many other things. This is complemented by actor Ron Livingston's revealing Video Diaries of boot camp. Additionally there's a "Who's Who" section and footage of the HBO premiere at Utah Beach, plus a TV spot for car company Jeep. --Mark Walker

Indiana Jones & The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, 21 Nov 2008
So very disaapointed in the film. Big yawn. I think Spielberg and Ford should have left fans to memories of greater films. The old bizzaz and sparkle wasn't there with Harrison Ford and with Spielbergs reputation am more than surprised he directed such a lame story. Sad, still the older ones are still about and they were the best. Time to hang up the rhino whip Indy.

D R E A D F U L what a shame!, 20 Nov 2008
I must admit to watching this film with great reluctance. How could you follow CRUSADE? It was the ideal full stop.
But no....they had to add this appalling PS!
My first cringe moment was brought on by the most unbelievably pathetic attempt at a Russian accent by acclaimed actress Cate Blanchette. John Cleese was far superior in WANDA.
The sets were almost on a par with Crossroads...totally insubstantial and plastic.
What else? Ridiculously twee story line, awful casting, no cameo performances worth mentioning and too much Botox. A total waste of 2 hours. Not one plus IMHO.
This movie should be boxed away with the Ark of the Covenant....

Childhoods End., 18 Nov 2008
At least the other movies had a tenuous grip on reality, the stunts and action sequences at least SEEMED plausible and the story lines were routed in established well known mythology. This was just too way over the top, like a cartoon. Karen Allen's grin and that god damn tarzan bit put the turd on the cake.

It's all about establishing internal logic with these films. This one had none.

The locations were dingy.


what happened???, 17 Nov 2008
Like most people I was intrigued at the prospect of another Indiana Jones movie after so long and I bought it in the first week of release on DVD. I also bought it because I felt a bit nostalgic and it was nice to be reminded of the days when it was so exciting to watch Indiana Jones as the "big movie" on the television at Christmas or Easter.

However, I am very disappointed with this film. It just comes across as a lazy, tired and unimaginative production. The film start off okay with a dramatic scene and there is a nice shot of the iconic hat that Dr Jones wears. The problems start with the special effects which are terrible. Look out for the scene where the Agent Spalko cut opens a shroud and you will not be impressed.

The plot is pretty weak. It seems to be borrowed from Stargate with a bit of The Mummy (yes, honestly) chucked in. A few of the scenes appear to be direct rip offs of The Mummy. Maybe because the previous Indiana movies focused on religion and this one doesn't, it doesn't have the same romantic quality about it. Another problem is the way Indiana's attitude to the plot is portrayed. He doesn't even seem to care about the mission whereas in the previous films epecially the Last Crusade he was deeply passionate about it. The central idea behind the story simply isn't clever enough. There is definitely no "wow" factor in this film. There isn't the same amount of investigating and clue hunting as there is in the previous films which leaves it feeling very very shallow. It's all very rushed and seems too easy. The ending leaves you feeling cheated as not much really happens and what little does happen is so predictable its awful.

The film is also hampered by the presence of the character of Mutt Williams. Indiana seems sidelined by this character and the script sees him being derided. The film feels like it should be called "Mutt Williams and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" which is not good. Indiana should of course always be the star attraction. In this type of film there isn't enough room for two action heroes. For some strange reason Shia LaBeouf has been dressed up as Fonzie and even acts like him in the film. Hopefully he will realise this was not a good career choice and will disassociate himself from the franchise. The film can't seem to decide if Indiana or Mutt should be the hero and this indecison really weakens the film even more. Another, let down is the inclusion of Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen). Indiana Jones has always been about the potency of the character's sexuality and his casual liasons. The idea though that he now has become a bit lovesick and always loved one woman all along is cheesy, ruining the mystique surrounding his character. It feels like writers just weren't bothered to give Indiana a new love interest and instead went for the easy option of sticking in an old character.

The inclusion of Mac (Ray Winstone) appears pointless as he does next to nothing apart from shout Indiana's name a few times. Quite why John Hurt, playing Prof. Oxley, agreed to appear in this below average film is beyond me. Cate Blanchett is pretty decent in the movie but because the script is poor she isn't given enough to do. Her talents are wasted here. Harrison Ford's talents are too wasted by the weak script, corny dialogue and dodgy stunt scenes.

The settings are not so special and to be honest it looks like the film was done on the cheap.

All those involved in this movie should be ashamed of themselves as the fans deserved better than this offering. Perhaps if the franchise wasn't viewed by the makers of the film as just a cash cow (an excuse to flog merchandise and generate sales from loyal fans), the film would be up to the standard of its predecessors.

I think most people will buy this movie out of curiosity, just to see if its as good as The Last Crusade etc. but will be dissatisfied with what they find.

Why are there so many detractors?, 17 Nov 2008
I really loved this film - as with the original 3 Indiana Jones movies, it contained some really good action sequences, alongside some ridiculous stunts, focussed on a supernatural archaelogical artefact, amusing jokes, and stereotypically insane bad guys (or girls). All in all, perfectly in line with the original franchise, so why all the complaints?

The movie's a bit of fun, and not supposed to be taken seriously, but is a brilliant bit of entertainment for an evening in. It was great to see Karen Allen brought back, and Harrison Ford, for all his 64 years, was in fine form. Shia LaBeouf was an absolute treasure to watch, and the big reveal - which is not aliens, as so many reviewers have claimed - was, if somewhat silly, at least no more so than the other 3 films were.

Well worth the watch for light entertainment - just don't expect it to be in any way serious!

Saved by the mice and Lucy, 19 Nov 2008
The first thing that I have to say is that this isn't a great movie,not by a long way.It's too long,boring in parts and I had the same problem that I had with the first film in the series.Namely,three of the four children are a charmless bunch bereft of any personality.Apart from Georgie Henley that is who plays Lucy.She gave the best performance in the first film and is also the best thing about 'Prince Caspian'.As the Prince,Ben Barnes certainly looks the part but his accent varies between Spanish,French and Scottish.I also felt that this film was aimed directly at the children's market.

So why have I given it a reasonable three stars?I was toying with giving it two but in fairness it does look great and some of the CGI is very well done.I especially liked the water giant near the end.If I could give this two and a half stars I would but because of Miss Henley,the water giant and the mice(cute) I will give it a maybe too generous three.This is not a movie that I would watch again but children will probably love it.

Good sequel, 19 Nov 2008
I was looking forward to this movie, this was one of the iconic books from my childhood. I have to say that I very much enjoyed it, however maybe not as much as the first film. The filming was excellent, with beautiful backdrops and surroundings, very good CGI and good acting. It's been so long since I read the books however, that I can't remember if this was faithful to the original though... will have to re-read them I think! The things that let it down for me were the comedy elements, the mouse-knights and alike fitted very much with a Disney film, however I thought that they were not necessary, and detracted from the story. Word of warning though, not sure if I would let very small children see it though as there is quite a lot of violent deaths albeit no blood.

Prince Caspian, 18 Nov 2008
This has to be one of the most disappointing films I've ever seen. The books enthralled me as a child and, as an adult I have read them to children in my family who were equally delighted by them, so the liberties taken with the story were a total disaster for us.

It starts off well enough, but then the film-makers apparently think they have to add plot twists with a very silly a subtext where Caspian & Peter are so jealous of eachother that they almost bring about the downfall of Narnia by it.

Yet again Hollywood has tinkered with the original and wonderful story, and lost the magic on the way, and because the special effects are fantastic it's a real let down. This is not a film I'll be buying or would want to own under any circumstances. Don't waste your money.

what happened to..., 16 Nov 2008
I did enjoy the film - and thought it stood up well against The Lion et al, but what happened to 'a Horse and his boy'? (The 3 chronicle) also will we go back to the Magician's Nephew at a later stage?


Excellent family entertainment, 13 Nov 2008
I'll keep it short and sweet - great performances, great effects, true to th ebook while still fleshing out the story and characters a little more. Fantastically fun action adventure that's suitable for all the family without patronising kids or sanitising the darker elements of the story. Parents should not object to being forced to sit through it with the kids!

Great movie - whats with the voice?, 18 Nov 2008
Great film, awesome performance by the Joker and 2 face. However, there are 2 reasons why i only gave this film 4 stars.

1. Batmans voice is ridiculous. Its the worse put on gravely voice in film and really grinds on me, esp the last scene with the joker.

2. Why oh why is that goon Caine, Alfred the butler. Cockney butler for one of the worlds richest tycoons - unlikely. I prefered Michael Gough, a classy English accent.

More than worth the hype, 13 Nov 2008
The massive media focus on Heath Ledger's tragic death has in its way done this film a disservice - sure, it was publicity, and Ledger's performance really is that astoundingly brilliant, but it tends to overshadow the fact that this entire film is just as astoundingly brilliant.

From start to finish, this is an incredible, dark and tortured tale of a man who realises that in order to truly be a hero, he must allow himself to be painted the villain. Christian Bale improves on his first outing as Batman to bring out these dilemmas and the conflict between his public images (both as millionaire playboy and vigilante) and private desires - if they do another one I really hope he agrees to reprise the role. The story is involving, Bruce Wayne's struggle to understand and thus effectively combat a nemesis whose only motivation is chaos for its own sake is an engaging and intriguing struggle and the action sequences are nothing short of spectacular. The whole film is visually stunning and incredibly well acted on all counts. The fall of Harvey Dent/Two Face is especially well played out and there is not a single moment of this film that is not enthralling. It constantly asks difficult questions of us and our morality - the big finale with the two ships is a great one, though I shan't spoil it with details - and the whole thing is just pitch perfect throughout. Chris Nolan has done a stellar job here.

As for Heath Ledger... I was always a big fan of him, from his early teen fare right through to the end, but this is a performance beyond what even I as a fan thought him capable of. His Joker is sadistic, cruel and yet perversely funny, and he is a revelation. It just makes me sad to think what he could have been doing in ten or twenty years' time if this was the calibre of work he was managing as a younger actor.

So when it comes to The Dark Knight, I say don't trust the hype - for this movie far exceeds it. Hands down the best comic book adaptation I've seen, and I do have a penchant for them (especially for a girl)

An absolute legend of a film, 12 Nov 2008
Right, where to start?! As you can probably tell from the title of this review, I was extremely impressed with this film. As a fan of superheroes in general from a very young age to this day, I was horrified by the absolutely atrocious protrayal of batman by the likes of George Clooney and Val Kilmer. For the most part, I consider these two to be good actors but the script was just sooooo terrible that they could do nothing to make the films any good!
When I heard that Batman Begins was going to return to the comic's dark and gritty roots, it was like a breath of fresh air. Needless to say, I thought Batman Begins was a fantastic film but I must admit that when I heard about the Dark Knight, I doubted it would live up to the standard set by its predecessor. Thankfully, I was wrong as the second installment more than equals Batman Begins.
Bale is brilliant as always as the hero Batman but the true star of the show has to be the late Heath Ledger. Many may think it was all hype but of those of you who haven't seen the film and think it's being exagerated, buy this and see for yourself. I won't ruin too much of the plot but I will say that it is far far darker than anything you may have seen in the genre before. The joy of the batman films is that they can be made serious without them seeming like a mockery, as has been done before with super-hero films. The lack of insane superpowers obviously makes this a much easier feat to achieve as you find yourself believing that it could really happen!
Right, so there's some positive stuff, now for the negative. I have only two gripes with this excellent film:
1) Morgan Freeman and Michael Cain were sadly neglected, which is almost criminal when dealing with actors of their calibre
2) Two-Face only appears in earnest for about 20 mins, which while being understandable considering the presence of the joker and the storyline in general, is a shame because the character was done so very well.

Let's face it, two bad points in a film this long? That's pretty good going!! One more thing as a word of warning: this film as been given a rating of 12. Now, I want to meet the people who did that and get their heads examined. DO NOT let anyone below the age of 15 see this, the sight of Two Face alone will give a 12 year old nightmares for months and he/she will definitely develop a fear of clowns!!



"You wanted me,here I am", 11 Nov 2008
My favourite superhero has always been Batman by a long way.It's the dark edge to him,the turmoil that makes him a little different.I thought that the previous movie 'Batman Begins' was a fine effort at re-inventing the franchise away from the almost comic to the intensity that is required nowadays.I read so many glowing tributes about 'The Dark Knight' that I looked forward to seeing it with keen interest.When it was over I thought it was good but not quite as fantastic as I'd hoped.

The acting was pretty much first rate.Christian Bale is clearly suited to the role,Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are as reliable as ever and Aaron Eckhart was better than I expected him to be as Harvey Dent.Probably the most forgetabble character was Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel.Obviously,the person that got the most plaudits was Heath Ledger as The Joker.Yes,he was good but in all honesty it was a showcase part and he was bound to stand out.Was he any better than Gary Oldman as Gordon?The honest answer is no he wasn't.Oldman's role was far less showey
but he excelled in every scene he was in and deserves equal praise.There are many well executed action scenes and there is no doubt it is a well made movie.

Why I can't give this five stars is because the movie is too long and the voice of Batman sounds just like the guy off the Carlsberg ads!It does sound a bit daft and should be toned down for the sequel.I think four stars is a fair mark and this is a DVD that I will definitely purchase.

Instantaneous classic, 08 Nov 2008
No much to add to other 'five-star' reviews. This is a classic and by miles the best comic book based film ever made. I would like Nolan to revisit the character once again but after having created such a brilliant plot, character development and poetic ending, maybe he shouldn't...

Just brilliant!


More the Joker's story then Batmans., 28 Oct 2008
Could the movie live up to the hype? Most definitely. Buy this film if only to see Heath Ledger's portrayal of Batman's arch-enemy the Joker. His performance is worth the cost of the blu-ray alone. I always though that Jack Nicholson's performance would set the standard, but Heath Ledger's Joker knocks that into a hat.

This is a continuance of the Dark Knight created originally by Bob Kane and later re-invented by Frank Miller. Batman ain't Mr NIce Guy and nor should he be. In fact Batman comes across as harder and possibly mentally unstable but then again to wear latex and a cape you have to be a bit mad.

If I found one fault in the film, it would be that it is too long. I would have rather this had been extended and made in too parts like Kill Bill. That worked so well and I am sure this would have been just as good and a continuing legacy to Heath Ledgers best performance.

A film that lives up to the hype, 23 Oct 2008
Firstly, this film as the title suggests is one of the few to live up to the hype since the Lord of the Rings. The acting was amazing, the effects were superb, and somehow although this is a superhero, it is done so well that you could imagine Batman and his enemies are real unlike the original movies where they are very comic book. For instance, compare the Joker against the 1989 movie. Both excellent in their own right, but the phsycotic Ledger is much more real than the comic book villain of Nicholson. The same can be said of Gotham itself and Gordon. My only (small) criticism of this movie was the length and number of bad guys. I think that it could maybe have been split into 2 movies, 1 bad guy in each. Doesn't stop it from being a 5 star movie for me!

Best movie since The Godfather., 15 Oct 2008

This film is so great that even the critics are comparing it to the Godfather, Goodfellas, Raiders of the lost ark, Scarface and many of the other classic movie hits in the world.

Now for any film to reach up to that callaber has to have the best acting, the best storyline and volience and The Dark Knight definately has them you dont even need to be a comic book fan to love this film but this is the most confirmed best comic book film this decade expecially much more better and more relistic than the spiderman films, and the superman films,
this movie also redifines comic book movie to the relistic world.....
"welcome to a world without rules".

The villians: Joker
Two-face
scarecrow (cameo)

Destined to be a Bestseller!, 08 Oct 2008
I know this is not out yet on Blu-Ray but i have watched the first 5 mins
of Dark Knight on Blu-Ray as it is on the special features on my Batman Begins Blu-Ray disc and judging by that this will be probably a must own title.

Honestly the opening scene of Dark Knight on Blu Ray on a big high definition TV with the sound cranked up is a jaw dropping experience!


HEATH LEDGER'S PARTING GIFT, 05 Oct 2008
Brokeback Mountain [2006] (REGION 1) (NTSC)
Viewed the film on the 'big - screen. Waiting for the DVD release. The Title of the film should have been,"Heath Ledger as the Joker". As always
Christian Bale, is the worst Batman in Moviedom. I shall give you a small example: In both 'The Batman Begins' and 'Dark Knight',why on earth does the Batman speak fluently, as Bruce Wayne, but the moment he dons his costume, starts talking, like he had severe Laryngitis? I haven't seen a single 'Batman' starting from Michael Keaton to Val Kilmer to George Clooney talk like this,in their portrayals as 'Batman'. Heath! Heath! Heath! He IS the only reason that made me visit the cinema. Already rumors are adrift that Heath was adviced not to take on the role, by someone, none other than, Jack Nicholson himself. It seems Mr.Nicholson warned him that the role was too dark.Heath, we will all miss you.

Just incredible...., 15 Nov 2008
Amazing. Truly amazing. The best, most moving war movie or series, or, anything, that i have ever seen. Truly moving, after wathching it I felt a huge kinship with the men of easy company. I even set my background as band of brothers. Buy this.

Excellent, 12 Nov 2008
Not usually one for war movies/dramas, but this was so well produced. Didn't catch the TV series, but glad to have found this on DVD - and at such a great price!

You will not see anything better, 18 Sep 2008
The finest drama of any kind available. A truly remarkable account of truly remarkable men.

Band of Brothers comments, 05 Aug 2008
excellent series.
no rambos here.
makes you wonder why we still keep killing each other.
maybe that's what it was meant to do??

Outstanding, apart from the snow in episode 6!, 02 May 2008
As all have said, this is a magnificent series, and a wonderful companion piece to 'Saving Private Ryan', despite giving my son the impression that World War 2 started in 1944.

The only criticism I can make is of the snow in Episode 6. It is so clearly artificial. And because the episode is shot in a studio, it feels almost like Narnia. Some of the actors aren't even good at looking cold.

However the Bastogne story is totally redeemed by Episode 7, which can stand on its own as a lesson in appalling and great leadership. And they get the snow right too!

You know you're going to get a different kind of superhero when you cast Robert Downey Jr. in the lead role. And Iron Man is different, in welcome ways. Cleverly updated from Marvel Comics' longstanding series, Iron Man puts billionaire industrialist Tony Stark (that's Downey) in the path of some Middle Eastern terrorists; in a brilliantly paced section, Stark invents an indestructible suit that allows him to escape. If the rest of the movie never quite hits that precise rhythm again, it nevertheless offers plenty of pleasure, as the renewed Stark swears off his past as a weapons manufacturer, develops his new Iron Man suit, and puzzles both his business partner (Jeff Bridges in great form) and executive assistant (Gwyneth Paltrow). Director Jon Favreau geeks out in fun ways with the hardware, but never lets it overpower the movie, and there's always a goofy one-liner or a slapstick pratfall around to break the tension. As for Downey, he doesn't get to jitterbug around too much in his improv way, but he brings enough of his unpredictable personality to keep the thing fresh. And listen up, hardcore Marvel mavens: even if you know the Stan Lee cameo is coming, you won't be able to guess it until it's on the screen. It all builds to a splendid final scene, with a concluding line delivery by Downey that just feels absolutely right. --Robert Horton

Indiana Jones & The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, 21 Nov 2008
So very disaapointed in the film. Big yawn. I think Spielberg and Ford should have left fans to memories of greater films. The old bizzaz and sparkle wasn't there with Harrison Ford and with Spielbergs reputation am more than surprised he directed such a lame story. Sad, still the older ones are still about and they were the best. Time to hang up the rhino whip Indy.

D R E A D F U L what a shame!, 20 Nov 2008
I must admit to watching this film with great reluctance. How could you follow CRUSADE? It was the ideal full stop.
But no....they had to add this appalling PS!
My first cringe moment was brought on by the most unbelievably pathetic attempt at a Russian accent by acclaimed actress Cate Blanchette. John Cleese was far superior in WANDA.
The sets were almost on a par with Crossroads...totally insubstantial and plastic.
What else? Ridiculously twee story line, awful casting, no cameo performances worth mentioning and too much Botox. A total waste of 2 hours. Not one plus IMHO.
This movie should be boxed away with the Ark of the Covenant....

Childhoods End., 18 Nov 2008
At least the other movies had a tenuous grip on reality, the stunts and action sequences at least SEEMED plausible and the story lines were routed in established well known mythology. This was just too way over the top, like a cartoon. Karen Allen's grin and that god damn tarzan bit put the turd on the cake.

It's all about establishing internal logic with these films. This one had none.

The locations were dingy.


what happened???, 17 Nov 2008
Like most people I was intrigued at the prospect of another Indiana Jones movie after so long and I bought it in the first week of release on DVD. I also bought it because I felt a bit nostalgic and it was nice to be reminded of the days when it was so exciting to watch Indiana Jones as the "big movie" on the television at Christmas or Easter.

However, I am very disappointed with this film. It just comes across as a lazy, tired and unimaginative production. The film start off okay with a dramatic scene and there is a nice shot of the iconic hat that Dr Jones wears. The problems start with the special effects which are terrible. Look out for the scene where the Agent Spalko cut opens a shroud and you will not be impressed.

The plot is pretty weak. It seems to be borrowed from Stargate with a bit of The Mummy (yes, honestly) chucked in. A few of the scenes appear to be direct rip offs of The Mummy. Maybe because the previous Indiana movies focused on religion and this one doesn't, it doesn't have the same romantic quality about it. Another problem is the way Indiana's attitude to the plot is portrayed. He doesn't even seem to care about the mission whereas in the previous films epecially the Last Crusade he was deeply passionate about it. The central idea behind the story simply isn't clever enough. There is definitely no "wow" factor in this film. There isn't the same amount of investigating and clue hunting as there is in the previous films which leaves it feeling very very shallow. It's all very rushed and seems too easy. The ending leaves you feeling cheated as not much really happens and what little does happen is so predictable its awful.

The film is also hampered by the presence of the character of Mutt Williams. Indiana seems sidelined by this character and the script sees him being derided. The film feels like it should be called "Mutt Williams and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" which is not good. Indiana should of course always be the star attraction. In this type of film there isn't enough room for two action heroes. For some strange reason Shia LaBeouf has been dressed up as Fonzie and even acts like him in the film. Hopefully he will realise this was not a good career choice and will disassociate himself from the franchise. The film can't seem to decide if Indiana or Mutt should be the hero and this indecison really weakens the film even more. Another, let down is the inclusion of Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen). Indiana Jones has always been about the potency of the character's sexuality and his casual liasons. The idea though that he now has become a bit lovesick and always loved one woman all along is cheesy, ruining the mystique surrounding his character. It feels like writers just weren't bothered to give Indiana a new love interest and instead went for the easy option of sticking in an old character.

The inclusion of Mac (Ray Winstone) appears pointless as he does next to nothing apart from shout Indiana's name a few times. Quite why John Hurt, playing Prof. Oxley, agreed to appear in this below average film is beyond me. Cate Blanchett is pretty decent in the movie but because the script is poor she isn't given enough to do. Her talents are wasted here. Harrison Ford's talents are too wasted by the weak script, corny dialogue and dodgy stunt scenes.

The settings are not so special and to be honest it looks like the film was done on the cheap.

All those involved in this movie should be ashamed of themselves as the fans deserved better than this offering. Perhaps if the franchise wasn't viewed by the makers of the film as just a cash cow (an excuse to flog merchandise and generate sales from loyal fans), the film would be up to the standard of its predecessors.

I think most people will buy this movie out of curiosity, just to see if its as good as The Last Crusade etc. but will be dissatisfied with what they find.

Why are there so many detractors?, 17 Nov 2008
I really loved this film - as with the original 3 Indiana Jones movies, it contained some really good action sequences, alongside some ridiculous stunts, focussed on a supernatural archaelogical artefact, amusing jokes, and stereotypically insane bad guys (or girls). All in all, perfectly in line with the original franchise, so why all the complaints?

The movie's a bit of fun, and not supposed to be taken seriously, but is a brilliant bit of entertainment for an evening in. It was great to see Karen Allen brought back, and Harrison Ford, for all his 64 years, was in fine form. Shia LaBeouf was an absolute treasure to watch, and the big reveal - which is not aliens, as so many reviewers have claimed - was, if somewhat silly, at least no more so than the other 3 films were.

Well worth the watch for light entertainment - just don't expect it to be in any way serious!

Saved by the mice and Lucy, 19 Nov 2008
The first thing that I have to say is that this isn't a great movie,not by a long way.It's too long,boring in parts and I had the same problem that I had with the first film in the series.Namely,three of the four children are a charmless bunch bereft of any personality.Apart from Georgie Henley that is who plays Lucy.She gave the best performance in the first film and is also the best thing about 'Prince Caspian'.As the Prince,Ben Barnes certainly looks the part but his accent varies between Spanish,French and Scottish.I also felt that this film was aimed directly at the children's market.

So why have I given it a reasonable three stars?I was toying with giving it two but in fairness it does look great and some of the CGI is very well done.I especially liked the water giant near the end.If I could give this two and a half stars I would but because of Miss Henley,the water giant and the mice(cute) I will give it a maybe too generous three.This is not a movie that I would watch again but children will probably love it.

Good sequel, 19 Nov 2008
I was looking forward to this movie, this was one of the iconic books from my childhood. I have to say that I very much enjoyed it, however maybe not as much as the first film. The filming was excellent, with beautiful backdrops and surroundings, very good CGI and good acting. It's been so long since I read the books however, that I can't remember if this was faithful to the original though... will have to re-read them I think! The things that let it down for me were the comedy elements, the mouse-knights and alike fitted very much with a Disney film, however I thought that they were not necessary, and detracted from the story. Word of warning