Reviews

I've been wanting to watch this for a few years and finally got around to it last night (on Stan). I didn't know much about the story apart from the setting and that there was some cannibalism involved.

Contrary to what IMDb says about "Australia's most notorious convict", I have lived in Australia for 20 years and had never heard of the main protagonist. That was just as well since I didn't know how the story was going unfold. That I had never seen any of the actors before also contributed to the realism.

While there are plenty of films about the dark ages of Europe and the pioneering days of North America, there are not enough films about the Australia's murky past. It's generally well-known that Irish lads might be sent here for petty crimes, but it's not well understood nowadays - when Australia is one of the most desirable places to live in the world - how inhospitable it was when white men first arrived. That the film depicts this was, in itself, sufficient reason for me to watch it in its entirety. (There are plenty more thoughtful stories that could be told about this era.)

I enjoyed the slow burning pace of the plot, and the fact that it was based on a real story, but what impressed me the most was the cinematography. Scene after scene is beautifully framed and colo(u)red, and often depicts the insignificance of man in the vast wilderness. I'd watch it again just for the scenery.

The acting and story itself were enthralling. I don't envy the cast for filming in such conditions! I only wish that I had had the opportunity to display subtitles for the English as well as the Gaelic as some of the phraseology and accents were hard to catch.

There was a scene in the second half where the picture quality deteriorated for a minute or two but that may have been down to a bottleneck in the bandwidth.

I was in two minds as the credits rolled about the beginning and end of the film. It would have been more "Hollywood" to set up the characters a bit early on so that we could understand their motivations. Similarly, it would have been very "Hollywood" to show how the main protagonist ultimately came out of the wilderness and made his tale public. Having slept on it - short of creating a film twice as long - I'm glad at the choices made by the director. The focus is purely on the survival story. We can only wonder grimly how we too might act in similar straits.

It's a film that shows a rare side of humanity, an unexplored piece of history and features some excellent music, cinematography, acting and an intelligent, believable script. I suspect it didn't make much money at the box office, which is a shame. This is a movie for grown ups. More please.

I watched this on DVD at home. Too bad I didn't see it in 3D in a cinema as the visuals are spectacular. Big monsters fighting big robots in Hong Kong and under the sea - what's not to like if you were ever a young boy!

The script was the worst I have heard in recent memory. I know Idris Elba can act (eg. The Wire) but in this movie he bears a constant pained expression which reflects the dire situation his character is in, and perhaps his regret at having accepted a role of any sort in such a film.

Given the focus on realistic graphics (monsters, robots, water effects, cities being demolished, etc.), it's disappointing that the producers didn't feel it necessary to have the human characters behave or talk like real humans.

This film teaches our children once again that when faced with something inexplicable and dangerous, scientists are weirdos who can't be trusted, while aggression, weaponry and self-confidence will ensure victory. It's a thoroughly "American" film, which reflects the country's gun culture and jingoism in today's news stories.

My 11 year old son enjoyed it. I just hope he doesn't take it to heart.

I should say at the outset that I am 43 years old so not exactly the target market for this film.

I felt sorry for Ken Watanabe whose scenes involved furrowing his brow and mumbling nonsense about the power of nature. I also felt sorry for David Strathairn - a good actor who had nothing to do in his scenes as an admiral.

Well done to all those involved in the making of this film who earned money from it, and congratulations to the special effect wizards who brought the creatures to life. I love seeing 'believable' massive creatures on screen, having grown up in the era of 'men in suit' and stop-motion monsters.

But I don't enjoy watching films that glorify the (usually American) military machine, and those that make a mockery of science (Prometheus, Independence Day, etc.). This film does both, while the script is the worst I have heard since 'Predators'. I didn't care about the characters or feel there was much excitement, and left the cinema feeling that no one has really done a scary monster story properly since Alien.

Not expecting anything brilliant I was not too disappointed. The two fellas obviously have fun together, but they are two steps slower than in the original "Rush Hour". Chris has put on weight and the effortless babble seems to have been replaced by rehearsed lines which even he seems bored with. Jackie Chan is as wooden as ever. The two are at their best when they're in action.

An attractive female lead reminiscent of a less voluptuous Beyonce adds to the interest level. The story, script and other characters are very much below average.

The climax below the Eiffel Tower is quite spectacular, and the credits were the best part for me: relief that it was over plus bloopers.

I have been living in fear of this film since I saw a poster for the original when I was 6 years old. I finally summoned up the courage to watch it (on a sunny afternoon) and am glad the ordeal is over.

What's to like: the roller-coaster ride of the story, the believable characters and acting, the cinematography. The black and white police video clip was a nice twist but could have perhaps been a more integral part of the film, rather than just bookends. The sheriff was very unnerving and plot-wise, there were enough loose ends to spur discussions after the viewing - not necessarily a bad thing from a marketing perspective. I also am grateful that the filmmakers didn't use cheap shock tactics (cut to a scary sight and make a loud sound) to keep viewers scared.

What's not to like: if you have seen "Jeepers Creepers", the story in this one will not be a surprise. Swap the pair of wings for a chainsaw and there you have it. I was in this situation and found the first half of "Jeepers Creepers" more unnerving but the second half of this one more engrossing. So watch both, and see what you think.

Fans of this film who want something similar set in modern times (instead of 1973) should also watch the X-File episode set in the same part of the country featuring a murderous family and spooky soundtrack. I can't recall the series or the name of the episode but it was very disturbing.