Reviews by SJMJ91

I absolutely loved the first one because that one was just a piece of pure family entertainment and because of this I was expecting a lot from this film despite the large amount of bad reviews it received. When I did see this one, I was greatly disappointed with it and wasn't that surprised of why some people hate it because the plot was very silly even for a family film, the acting was appalling and it wasn't even funny. The comedy within the film was surprisingly flat and rather stupid that I think only 3-4 year olds would laugh at. I think that the only good thing about Night At The Museum: Battle Of The Smithsonian was the great visual effects especially on Jedediah (portrayed by Owen Wilson) and Octavius (portrayed by Steve Coogan).


In the first Night At The Museum, I really liked Larry Daley's character because it was hilarious and a hero with a big heart and soul but I think that the plot made him seem like a complete idiot! Ben Stiller is obviously a great actor for the comedy genre but I think that this is his most disappointing performance of his career so far. I did expect a lot from him because of his great talent within comedies and his great performance in the first film but he was dreadful in this one unfortunately!! Amy Adams has made a real name for herself as of late like appearing in Enchanted (which is like a breakthrough for her) and her Oscar nominated performance in Doubt but why she decided to be in this film, I don't think I'll ever know!! Her performance was very bad and her character was ridiculous! She felt like an Indiana Jones-like female character but like a spoof of it. Owen Wilson drives me crazy anyway so that shows his awfulness once again! Hank Azaria is an absolutely pathetic excuse for playing a villain even in a family film! He looks like he is spoofing Xerxes in 300 and looks like a spoof from The Mummy villains even though they are spoofs themselves. I laughed AT him not with him. Dick Van Dyke was a better villain in the first film. The only decent thing about the cast in this one was the appearance of the great Robin Williams. However, that did disappoint as well because he wasn't in the film for very long.


Shawn Levy directed the first Night At The Museum absolutely terrifically but his directing in the sequel was bad but not as bad as I have seen with films of entertainment. The script was absolutely appalling too. There were some scenes that were absolutely pointless especially the scene when Larry was going to steal the Smithsonian tag from the fat guard and they were just bitching and bitching!! At that moment of that film, I was holding my head in ultimate shame!!


Overall, Night At The Museum: Battle Of The Smithsonian is an absolutely appalling film that I absolutely hated! If the effects were cheesy, it would have been one of the worst films ever but it isn't that far off from reaching that spot! One of the worst films of 2009 and one of the most disappointing films ever made!

I had exceedingly high expectations for this film being a fan of Clive Owen and Naomi Watts and it seemed like a great combination between a British actor and a British actress. However, when I did see this film, I was disappointed with it. It wasn't the actors within it, it was the film itself. The film fell flat even after 10 minutes and I was very bored within that time. I was quite annoyed at it as well because when you see the trailer of the film, there is loads of action within it but there is very little of it in the film itself which is very annoying! I think because it seemed like an action film was the only reason why people wanted to watch this film but it was no action film at all, really.


Clive Owen is my favourite actor from my country and he is the reason that kept me going through this disappointment. It wasn't him or his performance that was bad, it was the lousy character and I don't think the character was developed enough. It is the first bad film that Clive Owen has been in but no bad performances from him it remains thankfully!! Naomi Watts was another reason that kept me going with this film! Her character was lousy as well and just plain which is something that I hate in a film! Personally, if Naomi Watts or especially Clive Owen weren't in this film, I would've probably called it a disaster!

Overall, The International is a bad film that I thought was rather bad and disappointing. It is one of the worst of 2009 but I personally think that it could've been a lot worse without Owen or Watts in it.

The outcome of what I was thinking the film was going to be like was exactly the same as the income. I was predicting it to be a rather stupid film but is very intense and thrilling at the same time which is was. I admit that it was pretty crap but it did have enjoyable, explosive and impactful races. I haven't seen any of the other films and I'm going to keep it that way. The only reason why I saw Fast And Furious was a friend of mine wanted to see it and it was the only film at the cinema that he wanted to see. One thing that I wasn't expecting with this one was its complex dialogue. It had a story obviously but a rather silly messed up one. It is just a film with only interesting races and that is basically it.


I don't really like Vin Diesel as an actor at all really. I couldn't get into Dominic Toretto's character at all because I found him very uninteresting and a very silly character. Paul Walker nor Michelle Rodriguez made it any better as far as acting is concerned. It was plain, flat and also lame.


I haven't seen any of the others as I said but I have read on RottenTomatoes and Metacritic that it is the third best of the four. I am going to make sure that I don't watch any of the others. It is enjoyable as far as action is concerned but stories are rather stupid. I think this is one that most people should avoid. If you're looking for entertainment then you'll probably like it but if you're looking for an excellent dialogue with interesting characters you won't be so lucky.

I don't even know a positive reason why I wanted to watch this film. I guess I wanted to watch it for the same reason as I did for Meet The Spartans and The Love Guru: to see how crap it was. It would have been my biggest guilty pleasure ever if I enjoyed it. I obviously appreciate that this is like a horror comedy but they could have at least made the characters seem interesting.


Mathew Horne was awful as Jimmy. He made no attempt to act in it at all, really. His so-called "acting" was neither emotional nor funny. James Corden was embarrassingly funny as Fletch. No, he's not a good actor but he made me laugh a tiny bit in a few scenes. Despite that, it didn't reconsider my decision to actually like this film.


I admit that the directing isn't like top class filmmaking but I think that is what it was aiming to be anyway. It would have made a decent Edgar Wright film but he has already done a horror comedy before. He would make it better because I think he would be able to create a suitable, clever and really interesting story. The script was damn awful just as the directing and acting within the film were.


Overall, Lesbian Vampire Killers is an obviously stupid film that I really didn't like at all. I wouldn't recommend it at all but everybody who watches and loves or likes this film would find this a guilty pleasure.

I was actually expecting quite a lot going into this film because it is a DreamWorks film and they do a lot of great films yet they do some rather bad ones too. I was both disappointed and un-surprised when I finished this film because it did seem like a very silly film but it was an animated film and I admit it did look fun for the family. Monsters Vs. Aliens is created by creators of Shrek, Madagascar, The Prince Of Egypt, Over The Hedge and many more. It probably is one of the worst DreamWorks animated films so far.


Actors like Reese Witherspoon, Seth Rogen, Hugh Laurie, Will Arnett and Kiefer Sutherland provide the voices within Monsters Vs. Aliens. Susan Murphy (Witherspoon) is hit by a meteorite on the day of her wedding, absorbing a substance called quantonium and growing into a giantess. Alerted to the meteorite crash, the military arrive and capture Susan. She is labeled a monster, renamed "Ginormica" by the government, and sent to a top-secret prison facility headed by General W.R. Monger (Sutherland) and containing other monsters: B.O.B. (Rogen), a brainless, indestructible gelatinous blob; Dr. Cockroach, Ph.D. (Laurie), a mad scientist with the head and abilities of a cockroach; the Missing Link (Arnett), an amphibious fish-ape hybrid; and Insectosaurus, a colossal grub that is 300 feet larger than Susan. The monsters are forbidden to have any contact with the outside world; while the other monsters have been living contentedly with this lifestyle for the past 50 years, Susan feels incredibly isolated and wishes to return to her old life.


Overall, I didn't find Monsters Vs. Aliens really bad, I just didn't find it a very good film to watch and I thought it was more bad than good. I wouldn't recommend it but it wasn't awful. Won't succeed at getting any Oscar nominations. Hope DreamWorks do better next time.

I had zero interest in watching this at all because it looked an absolutely shit film but when I saw it at the cinema, it wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. It still wasn't a very good film but I was quite surprised that it wasn't awful which is what I was expecting, really. One thing that this film does have that pretty much all fantasy and science fiction films have are breathtaking visual and sound effects. The effects in the action were good but it sort of looks like something that Michael Bay would do because there were loads of mindless explosions. I think that the only Oscar that it could be on the list to be nominated for would be for Best Visual Effects.


Channing Tatum's performance wasn't good because I don't think he made very much effort to get into the character. To me, Channing is like another Zac Efron. Yes, Channing is a charming actor to play a character like Duke but I think he could have made a better effort. Marlon Wayans was actually quite humourous in this one. No, he wasn't hilarious but I did have little chuckles under my breath a few times. Rachel Nichols and Sienna Miller weren't bad as their characters. I was blown away and taken completely by their looks.


Stephen Sommers isn't a very good director at all, really especially with The Mummy, The Mummy Returns and Van Helsing. However, his work on G.I. Joe wasn't that bad. It was just for entertainment but I am ever so glad that Sommers didn't direct this film like Michael Bay has done in the past in his action films. Sommers didn't have that much overloaded and mindless explosions like Michael Bay usually have in his films. It wasn't top-notch filmmaking but it was decent enough for entertainment which I accepted.


Overall, G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra is a neither bad nor good film adaptation of the famous toys that is just a piece of entertainment. I find it a typical action film that has breathtaking technical effects but not that decent acting and directing.

I was looking forward to seeing this one because I liked the first film with all of the intense, violent action within it. When I saw it, I was slightly disappointed and some of the action sequences were awesome as well. Where I found it disappointing was that almost every single shot within the film had either violence or sex in it. Basically, went over the top with sex and violence whereas they didn't do that very much in the first film which is why I prefer the first film over this one. There were a few moments of laughter especially the public sex scene because it was a lot more public than it was in the first films.


Jason Statham's performance as Chev Chelios is once again stupid but kick-ass as well! Because Chev's heart needs powering up every second he's living, he takes very dangerous ways of powering it up. In one of the scenes, he put pliers on his tongue, his penis and his nipples. Jason is an actor of entertainment nothing more. I prefer him in Death Race over both Crank films because he was quite an emotional character in that one. Amy Smart wasn?t very good in this film just as she wasn't in the first Crank but I have got to say that she was damn hot!!


The directing from Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor was absolutely terrific in the action scenes but the thing that I personally think that both films have lacked the believability of what Chev goes through. Both of the Crank films make it sound partly like a science fiction film.


Overall, Crank 2: High Voltage is a good film for entertainment and that's it. Rather flawed in some ways but still decent to watch. Not as good as the first Crank but could?ve been a lot better.

Personally, my expectations of Duplicity were neither high nor low. I think I liked it as much as I thought I would. Duplicity is a film that does have a very complex story that does become a mess on occasions but makes sense towards the conclusion. Duplicity is a film that teaches a very important lesson: make sure you know who you can truly trust. Duplicity is a film that isnt a thriller but has some moments where it does become tense. It has quite a lot of drama within it.


Julia Roberts and Clive Owen did a fine job in masterpiece Closer. They work alongside each other once again. Clive Owen is one of my all-time favourite actors and his performance as Ray in this film is another brilliant one! He has yet to disappoint me in any of his films. Ray is a con man who along with Claire try and double-cross each others bosses for a large sum of money. The only problem they have is that they lack trust in each other despite them sleeping with each other. Julia Roberts was even better as Claire. Seeing her in Duplicity made her look a lot younger than she actually is. She looks about 34-35 in this film when she is really 41-years-old at the time of the film. I personally think that they should be in a Oscar romantic-drama film. Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinson were good in this film too.


After Tony Gilroys large success on Michael Clayton, he decides to make a film that is in a similar sort of genre but has different actors and different plot. I didnt like Michael Clayton at all when I saw it but I did enjoy this one more because I understood it more, I love Clive and Julia and also the characters and the way it was filmed was fascinating.


Duplicity isnt one of the best films from neither Julia Roberts nor Clive Owen but its still a good film to watch. It is a pretty underrated film in my opinion. Overall, Duplicity is a good film that I enjoyed but plot became a bit of a mess.

After seeing the trailer of The Young Victoria I was really looking forward to seeing it because I love films based on history especially about Kings And Queens of Britain. After seeing it on DVD, there were some things about The Young Victoria that slightly disappointed me. They were that as I was watching it, it didn't really feel like history, it was too short as well, and I thought that the film ended unfinished. The costume design within the film was absolutely phenomenal as well as the art direction like most history films are. I don't get what is so underrated about history films based on Kings, Queens, Princes and Princesses. I suppose it could be there is no modern day settings, action, stunning visual effects or tense or scary moments within them.


Emily Blunt was actually pretty good as Queen Victoria. I do personally think there should be a bio-pic about Victoria's whole life rather than when she was young because it seems unfinished and the audience would request more which is why I was slightly disappointed even though it was a good film that I enjoyed. Rupert Friend's performance as Prince Albert was absolutely dreadful! He can't believe that Friend was playing him! He made Prince Albert like a charmer who doesn't fit in the style of the film at all which is the most disappointing thing about this film. Albert is the cousin of Victoria. Personally, I think cousins getting married and having children together is almost as disgusting as brothers and sisters, mums and sons and fathers and daughters.


The directing of this film was good but could have improved to make it feel more like history. It wasn't so much the actors but it was the way they were playing them that lacked the believability of it all being history. In cases of production and the way the camera was moving around was handled really well in my opinion. The script was really good. I bet it must have been hard writing a script for a film based on history because Victoria's early life isn't based on a novel or a play.


Overall, The Young Victoria is a good history film that does have its disappointments. It is neither one of the best nor one of the worst of 2009 and I think that there could have been a bigger improvement of this film. There should be an actress who can portray a full-life bio-pic about Victoria's life.

I didn't know hardly anything at all about this film when going to the cinema to see it. The only thing I knew is that it was a film about vampires. I usually hate vampire films and that explains the reason why my expectations weren't very high. When I saw it, I was pleasantly surprised at it because it is a fun film to watch that is just pure entertainment. It wasn't as dark as other vampire films that I have seen. I have heard that the film is based on two books of a franchise of vampire books. It is a film that teaches no matter what they look like, its about who they are. This probably would scare some children under the age of 8 but I don't think it was scary at all. I think the one thing that I dislike about vampire films is that they are all the same. The plots are too similar. As far as this one is concerned, it obviously had vampires in it but had the arch enemy of vampires.


Chris Massoglia's performance as Darren was alright. I mean, he was young and he deserved a chance but I do personally think his performance could've been a lot better. I don't think he made Darren a very powerful character. He made him look more like a complete idiot who should just be shot dead. John C. Reilly's performance was absolutely fantastic! I think he was the one who made this film really good. He is a very good actor but I have to say he was a brilliant choice for the character he played. He made this film quite amusing especially when he was swearing quite a bit and also the jokes he said regarding Darren and Rebecca. Josh Hutcherson is without a doubt one of the best child stars of this generation. He has proven it once again with another great performance as Steve. Steve is Darren's best friend. Steve's father abandoned him and his mother is an alcoholic. Josh is awesome at playing a villain. His performance was awesome in this one but prefer other films that he did like Zathura and Bridge To Terabithia.


Paul Weitz directed this film rather well because I think he managed to make it suitable for any child at least over the age of 7 because it isn't a violent film and it isn't very scary either. I mean, the comedy, the action and the imagination that kids can use has made it a kids film as well. Its the same with Twilight, really, apart from that Twilight is crap. Weitz is a director of pure entertainment and Cirque Du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant is another success to his entertaining flexography.


Overall, Cirque Du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant is a good film with entertainment at its finest. One of the most entertaining films of 2009 and I feel that it became a pleasant surprise.