Reviews

...A bit disappointing Probably because I'm a bit too old for this. But I expected a bit more action and bloodshed for my buck. Kind of like Running Man for 2012- sounded similar- 24 enter only one can leave. Instead it's like Running Man for the Twilight Generation, light on substance (crumbling society apart- which could have been more interesting, if not brushed over) and low on action and violence. I am not a violence junkie, but if a film has 24 participants whittled down to one through fighting you'd expect to see bloodshed wouldn't you? This film highlights a bigger issue with Hollywood releases in recent years whereby studios have sought to maximise revenue by releasing for the age group 12A (PG-13, whatever), which is why I really appreciate when a studio goes for it and makes a proper 18 film- see "Drive", awesome movie, great plot, fantastic characters, beautiful back drops. Sometimes violence is necessary to a film, imagine Goodfellas without the whacking. Anyway, a good movie? Yes. A missed opportunity? Definitely. Some good acting from the youngsters though- no doubt, although Woody Harrelson stole the show again.

This is a very good action film. But it isn't Bond as you know it. Let me explain. Firstly a lot of the traditional Bond themes are no where to be seen. No Gadgets. No Q. No Cheesy one liners. No Moneypenny. And this is no bad thing for the most part. What you get is a darker more realistic Bond. Like the rejuvenated Batman films Bond has gone darker, grittier and in my opinion better. Central to this is Daniel Craig's portrayal of 007, he is brooding, blunt, brilliant and exciting to watch. He exudes an aura of a man trying to punish those who are responsible for his lost love from Casino Royale. It goes some way to explain why Bond is so cold and distrustful towards his many women conquests, who would want to go through that again? One of the reasons Craig is so exciting to watch is that most of the action and fight sequences feel like they have been lifted straight from the Bourne trilogy. Again this is no bad thing as it was about time the flagging Bond franchise was injected with a bit more realism and some adrenaline. Quantum of Solace follows directly on from Casino Royale with everyone's favourite British agent out for revenge or fulfilling his duty depending on who you want to believe. You should definitely watch Casino Royale prior to watching Quantum of Solace as this film starts fast and rarely slows down, and at well under two hours is a good length for an action flick. Because it dovetails so well with the first of the Daniel Craig's excursions as Bond it feels more like a sequel or continuation of a trilogy than it does a stand alone movie- it is because of this it again feels more like Bourne than 'classic' Bond. If you are a fan of classic Bond you may not like this newer take on the series as you probably don't like Bourne either. Trust me though Bond is better for being like Bourne and moving away from the blandness and boredom of last few under Brosnan's stewardship. Bond is back, but Bourne is still better- however I expect the gap to close again and Bond to start having more fun and maybe one cool gadget in the next instalment, which I am eagerly anticipating on the back of this film.

I pay £12.99 a month so that I can go to the cinema and see as many films as I wish. That said I won't waste my time and watch any rubbish, so I usually use reviews and websites such as this one to evaluate whether a film is worth my valuable time. A decent score for "Taken" on IMDb was countered by a one star review on Empire, stating that the film was "A venomous little actioner that mistakes bile for adrenaline." Having now seen the film for myself I can only suggest the reviewer had arrived home after putting the family pet down only to discover his wife in bed with his brother, best friend and a menagerie of farmyard animals or maybe the reviewer just doesn't dig action films. I write that because if you like action films, you are very likely to love this. It has action scenes that rival (almost feel borrowed) from the Bourne trilogy as Bryan (Neeson) pursues his daughter through the seedy criminal underworld in Paris stopping at nothing to recover his daughter. He leaves a lot of people on the floor in his efforts and it was slick, quick and violent. Superb if you like the genre. Still good if you don't. The film deals with some sensitive issues and will leave you thinking about them for a while after. We do have a tendency to have our heads in the clouds and forget that truly horrible things are happening all over the world and people good and bad are being bought and sold. Difficult to believe on this evidence Neeson is 56, what he most definitely is, is a very talented and very versatile actor. He moves from a caring father to a menacing deadly weapon in an extremely believable manner. It is the best action/revenge film I have seen in a long time- sometimes you have to judge for yourself and not base your decisions on other people's opinions- I have Empire to thank for that.

Put quite simply this is an excellent movie, which I enjoy with every viewing.

First of all the action pieces are glorious, a real ballet of bullets- Think Matrix with guns, only better. But fantastic action aside, there is still plenty to appreciate about this movie.

This movie really makes you think about what you would be willing to sacrifice in order to live in a peaceful, respecting society. When scientists discover that emotion is behind all of mans negative actions, they try and eradicate such thoughts with mind controlling drugs and banning any items that may invoke feelings or thoughts.

This is not a new topic for films or books to ponder. However the way it is done in this film, where Preston- the standard bearer of control and duty, discovers what it is like to feel and discover emotions when he inadvertently breaks his drugs capsule, and has to decide where his loyalties should lie and start making all his own decisions, well it is really is an emotionally charged journey, and you feel for him the whole way.

Christian Bale has amassed a catalogue of good films and is excellent in the lead role portraying a man torn between rules and order and the price you must pay the state run government for this luxury. And any movie with Sean Bean in (Sharpie!) always gets my vote.

Seriously, is it alright to give up emotions if it means the end of war, murder, rape etc? Well without emotions how would we even know we were alive, what would be the point? Watch this film, enjoy it and then have a think about that. I always do.

I really wanted to like this movie. Started by Kubrick, finished by Spielberg- it should be a masterpiece. Instead you get a really awful film, that whilst overly long by about thirty minutes feels incomplete. It seems very apparent that it was two directors interpretation of the script edited together in a mish mash of hash. I was very disappointed with this film and the storyline lifted from Pinocchio and frankenstein set in a future where robots fill the voids in our lives, until they are replaced by upgrades or even humans (think "I want to be a real boy"). This movie could and should have been a lot better, the set ups and special effects are excellent, but the studio should really have bit the bullet and pulled the film and let somebody have a go from scratch. Then there is the sentiment you get from having watched the film. Firstly you feel rather than annoyed that you have just wasted nearly two and a half hours of your life watching this. Secondly you feel utterly depressed and bordering on suicidal having watched David's agonising search for parental love and meaning of his existence. Finally outside of Road to Perdition (which he is barely in) I have yet to see Jude Law in a decent film. Truly one to avoid.