Film Reviews by AB

With great character-acting from Alastair Sim and Margaret Rutherford, a typical UK film based on farce with amusing scenes and running jokes (vide the rugby posts/lacrosse nets). Great fun

Obviously, never having been in this position, I think that a spark of humanity would exist between 2 trapped people with some sort of common decency like trying to communicate to each other without shouting would be a basis.

Unsatisfactory and poor ending

Sandra Bullock got her part spot on in this film - uptight but beneath the surface is a rebel wanting to get out - and she was far better than I thought she was going to be, especially up against Melissa McCarthy, who does what she always does in acting the loud-mouthed slob, but both actresses help make the film, which was amusing in the most part and funny in others, with a storyline that helped everyone make the most of their characters.

Lee van Cleef is, this time, a baddie, leading a band of outlaws, but made to pay by a kid and a prospector.

Nothing special in the film - storyline has been seen many a time - so fairly predictable, but it has amusing parts in it, as well as unbelievable ones and saccharin ones. Good theme tune.

As other reviewers have indicated, not a shoot-em-up, explosive-ridden, chase, but a slow-moving, watchable, feel-good film with good acting, a plausible storyline ('mostly true') but some strands left unanswered.

Another unfathomable piece of rubbish from the Coen brothers. What started as a story degenerated into "is this really happening or is it in someone's mind?" It's about time people started confronting the Coen brothers and saying "your bizarre films don't impress anyone beyond your psychiatrists"

This is a vomit-inducing Disneyfication of a dreadful storyline - as bad as the 2003 version of the same film but (as bizarre as it may seem), slightly worse as the children's voices are squeakily beyond an adult's hearing range, so the dialogue is very often incomprehensible due to the volume of mouse noises that pass for a conversation. As for the story being a 'timeless classic' I have never heard of it and hopefully time will swallow up any future remakes of this awful film that in itself is incomprehensible gibberish.

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

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

Certainly not a "thriller" as quoted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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