60-second cinema

8 out of 10 A touchingly simple story, nicely told, about loneliness, friendship, and the importance of doing the right thing. To be honest, it's such a simple story that it felt more reminiscent of a Pixar short than one of their full-length features. It's fairly short on dialogue too, which meant it had to rely more on pathos to tell the story; something it achieves admirably. Oh, and it's got incredible graphics. I hate noticing the graphics in modern animations, but this was yet another triumph from Pixar. And yet, for me, also part of its downfall. Maybe if the film had used traditional animation rather than full-on CGI, it would've been less distracting and, as a result, more successful a story-telling. Reading the reviews, however, I get the feeling I'm the only person on the planet who sees it this way. Sucks to be me. Despite this, I still think it's a great film. A lot's been said of its opening 30 or 40 minutes being almost void of dialogue ...

3 out of 10 The first film was great. This one is pants. Not enough political intrigue, too much spinning-camera-round-stationary-subject, leaving the viewer wondering just-wtf-were-they-thinking.

6 out of 10 George bloody Lucas. Not a name you really want to see on the writing credits for a film you desperately want to be brilliant. Alas, it was the case for Indy IV. Indeed, the first couple of minutes of dialogue bore out my concerns, as the film gets off to an incredibly bad start. I don't think I've ever seen actors less comfortable with their lines. Thankfully, after a while, things pick up and we get more into the flow of a classic Indiana Jones film. As ever, the plot is fairly incidental to the action, which is a good job given it's got fat George's paw prints all over it. I'll not spoil it too much, but bear in mind his track record and you'll get an idea of where it's going. The action, however, does its job of providing entertainment. Modern CGI might allow for a few more ludicrous sequences than before, but until the final scenes, it's not to the film's detriment. Overall, if I blank out some of the early dialogue and the fil...

5 out of 10 Before I begin I would like to point out 2 things....... 1. I am a die hard fan of Sex and the City (the television series)! 2. This review contains spoilers so if you don't want to know what happens stop reading NOW! This film is a "follow-up" to the highly successful and entertaining series depicting "what happened next" ! The first 10 minutes of the film sets the story so far and introduces the characters - which I obviously acknowledge has to be done as, believe it or not, there are actually some people who never watched the series! Firstly, there is the rather predictable story of Carrie and Big's wedding - surprise, surprise he jilts her at the alter (didn't see that one coming!) In other news Samantha is struggling after moving to LA with Smith, Charlotte is sickeningly happy and expecting her second child with Harry and Miranda is devastated to discover that Steve has had an affair! The main problem that I have with this film is th...

8 out of 10 Brilliant, ridiculous fun. But then, that's exactly what you hope for from comic book adaptations. I'd never come across Iron Man before this film came out — I'm not a proper afficionado — but the character got a great introduction here. And, for once, the eponymous hero actually had a bit of swagger, rather than being a shy nerd. Which, of course, made it perfect casting for Robert Downey Jr . Still, even with ingredients like these in the mix, it could've been pants. Instead, it was a little bit Spider-Man, a little bit Batman, and a little bit Indiana Jones. As a whole, it held together very well and was thoroughly entertaining. I'll be surprised if it doesn't get a sequel.

9 out of 10 Despite having spent most of my teenage years reading 99% of Isaac Asimov's entire sci-fi output, I still struggle to remember whether I, Robot is actually one of his stories, or just inspired by his work. Whatever, it's pretty faithful to Asimov's classic detective storylines and, of course, incorporates his famous three laws . Here, Will Smith plays detective Spooner, a robot-sceptic in a world that has come to welcome robots into their lives as harmless assistants. The movie starts with Spooner being called in to investigate the apparent suicide of the scientist who first created mankind's new servants. Turns out he was requested as the investigator by the victim himself and Spooner smells a rat. All is not as straightforward as it seems and, in the face of mounting resistance, he sets out to discover a more sinister truth behind it all. I have to say, I love this film. I've probably seen it 4 times now and I've yet to grow tired of it. I...

6 out of 10 Not my favourite sort of film, Son of Rambow is at least an occasionally amusing film, if not an uproarious one. Harmless is probably the word I'd choose, if forced to choose just one. Or amusing. Or perhaps okay. Starring Generic Soft British Kid as Will Proudfoot, an Amish-alike in a 1980's comprehensive school, the film follows his trials and tribulations as he finds himself drawn into the world of Generic British Rebel With A Soft Side , Lee Carter. After being exposed to his first TV ever, in the form of Rambo: First Blood , Will proceeds to take an enthusiastic involvement in Lee's film-making ambitions and it all follows from there. You can probably guess the entire story already, but don't let that put you off too much. Not the most original film ever, but it was enjoyable enough.