BOTTOM LINE: This is a deeply satisfying action film with a great story and cast. The only downside is that it's been done before in films like the 80's B-grade classic "Commando". However, the style and sophistication of the story telling and action sequences, and Neeson's powerful presence in the lead role, more than make up for its lack of originality.

THE GOOD: Liam Neeson picks up where Arnie left off, playing an ex-special forces soldier who has to rescue his daughter from a group of Albanian thugs who have sold her in to sexual slavery in Europe. Although this story is nothing new (if you don't know why I referred to Arnold Schwarzenegger in my opening line, then go watch "Commando"), the refreshing aspects in this film reside in the sophistication of its story-telling in emulating the Bourne film series. Much of the film is set in France where Bryan (Neeson) tracks down some dangerous hoodlums who don't heed his warning when he says he's going to come after them after they kidnap his daughter. The casting of Liam Neeson in the title role was a masterstroke; not only is he as tough as they come, but he brings a warm, heart-felt feeling to his performance that adds a few more dimensions to what could have been a two-dimensional action flick. The film is set up in an unconventional way with Bryan living on his own, estranged from his wife (Famke Janssen) but on good terms with his daughter. The dynamics of the relationships between these characters are quite rich, which helps us get in to Bryan's plight when he goes chasing the bad guys. From the start, you want to see Bryan take them all out one by one, and given what they have planned for his daughter, you really do want him to exact justice on these cowardly thugs. The filmmakers have done a great job of making each encounter Bryan has with his targets unique; one particularly satisfying scene occurs when Bryan meets up with the man he spoke to on the phone when his daughter was taken. Bryan calmly says, "you don't remember do you? Did you really think I wouldn't find you?" And then bang! All hell breaks loose! French director Pierre Morel makes his influence felt through the style and execution of the images and sequences (although the story has a Hollywood bent, much of the film feels European). The acting is first rate, and surprisingly, Holly Valance shows up in a supporting role and actually does a decent job. "Taken" is in essence a sophisticated version of "Commando", and it's a widely entertaining ride.

THE BAD: The only negative going against this film is that it's not original. The most obvious example of a film with the same story is Arnold Schwarzenegger's B-Grade action classic, "Commando", where the big man had only 11 hours to save his daughter after she was kidnapped. A few details are different in "Taken" but essentially it's the same thing. This isn't really too bad because the style and casting of "Taken" more than make up for its lack of originality. If one were to nitpick, one might find it a tad unbelievable that one man is capable of doing so many things (ie the one man army), but that's all part of the fun.

Getting sick of the same old TV shows? Well even though Ben 10 recently went of the air, this is the show for you! Ben 10 is a show about a family, where the brother Ben, of course, stumbles upon an alien pod in the woods while on vacation! Found inside is a watch like device witch happens to be called the, "Omnitrix". The Omnitrix attaches to Ben's wrist and the gives him the power to transform into an alien, but only for 10 minutes so that his DNA doesn't permanently become damaged! From his new gained powers, Ben realized that now has the responsibility to use his powers to do good. Thru his journeys with his family, a sister Gwen, and grandfather Max, they do battle with many aliens, looking too take the Omnitrix from them.

The one warlord alien Vilgax, is one of Bens main nemesis's! Vilgax tried to conquer the galaxy by stealing the Omnitrix, by sending his alien drones, and even he himself tried too take it! But Ben and his family succeeded in defeating Vilgax! Ben even had to fight Kevin! Someone who could absorb some of bens powers from being around the Omnitrix. Kevin even eventually banded together with an alien named "Ghostfreak" who escaped the Omnitrix and tried too possess Ben! But luckily Ghostfreak and Kevin where eventually defeated! Toward the end of the fourth season of Ben 10, Ben even had to defeat a resurrected Ghostfreak and Vilgax! Ben even had to stop someone named Doctor Vicktor from cloaking the world with his corrodium beam project!

And Ben did all of this only with the help of his family and the power of the Omnitrix! A device originally designed to show the many races of the universe about one another, made by Azmuth. But the Omnitrix was eventually used for war because of its inherited power. The Omnitrix, binds too your skin, and is very hard to get off! Though very mechanical looking, it is organic in the sense of how it fits the user, growing and changing. It binds the users DNA with the DNA of the 10 aliens inside! Ben only has limited use of the Omnitrix, because of his inexperience, but the aliens that are after it have a better understanding of it, and can use it to its optimum function. Changing from one alien to another just by thinking it!

So as you can see the Cartoon Network show, Ben 10 is a very appealing show too a wide variety of people.

You may even want too check out the two Ben 10 movies that where released. The first, "Ben 10: Secret of the Omnitrix", and the second, "Ben 10: Race Against Time". Both moves dive deeper into the origins of the Omnitrix and the life of Ben and his family after the original 4 season series.

I have never been that interested in what the "celebrities" were doing. I was too busy living my own exciting life filled with my relationships, work, moving, gaining weight, losing weight among all the other stuff we all go through. But one day my cousin sent me an email titled "Latest Movie Star Exposed!" with reference to a celebrity that was in one of the latest movies. It showed her doing a very scandalous act that was not only funny but astonishing, it made me think, my life is nothing like these famous people!

I was hooked. I wanted to see what they were all doing. Who they were marrying, sleeping with, which ones were pregnant, who had what and would they be around to star in another favorite movie. I also love to search to see who is wearing what and what the newest fashions will be. After all, we know that if Nicole Kidman walked down the street wearing a paper sack, we would all want one. And, if Jennifer Aniston colored her hair purple and green, there would be woman everywhere doing it.

But what is the real reason we all like to watch and copy our favorite celebs? Is it because our lives are just so mundane with everyone doing the same thing. You get your education, get married, have a kid or so. You raise the kids, maybe you stay married or not. But it doesn't matter, none of it is as entertaining as the scandals and rumors that go on in the life of our favorite celebrity.

I personally think it has something to do with the roles they play. You see them in the movie portraying someone that can turn into a super hero like Batman, who can "fly" around and save good people from the evil. Then, you find out that he was just a regular little boy who had a horrible childhood experience so you figure that Michael Keaton or Christian Bale are these amazing heroes that can do anything, even in real life.

You see Diane Lane going to Italy on a whim and buying an awesome countryside house and then falling in love and you think she is such a lucky person, you want to know more about her. I must admit though that she is a pretty darned blessed. She is married to celebrity Josh Brolin and step daughter-in-law to my mom's favorite person in the celebrity world, Barbara Streisand. In fact, she is coming out in a new movie with Mr. Gere and when my mom saw her hairstyle in the previews, she had to go out and get the same haircut!

We also love to be connected with saying we know a celebrity personally. I have my own story of an up and coming star, Haley Bennett from Music and Lyrics. I have personally known her since she was born, her mother and my mother are best friends. We always look for news and pictures of Haley and just know that if there are ever any nasty scandals associated with her, they cannot be true. No matter if Haley is playing a young ditsy blond or a child of Satan, none of it is really her, she is only playing a part.

In the spring of 1889, Charlie Chaplin was born to almost unknown music hall entertainer parents. The boy grew up to be the greatest international star of the American silent comic cinema. He also became twentieth century's first media Superstar, the first artistic creator. Chaplin was the first acknowledged artistic genius of world cinema, recognized by the influential generation of artists and moviegoers.

While the public have forgotten many silent era stars, Charlie Chaplin remains a household name in most parts of the world.

Charlie Chaplin had to face a very turbulent childhood. His parents separated even before he was three. His mother, actress Lily Harvey, lived with Charlie. The small Charlie also lived in different places before he and his brother were sent to Kennington Road School and later on to a school for the paupers, because of their financial situation. These came as a shock for the sensitive child and the pain and agony of desperate poverty were reflected subsequently in the characters of his films. The themes of his films were much influenced by his childhood incidents and experiences.

His genius was essentially pantomimic, ideally suited to the silent cinema era. Chaplin's early comedies used extreme physical comedy and exaggerated gestures. But his pantomime was subtler. The visual gags were pure fun. The tramp character would aggressively assault his enemies with kicks and bricks. People loved him though critics warned that his comedy bordered on vulgarity.

During the period of 1918 to 1922, he made films like A Dog's Life, The Kid, The Idle Class and The Pilgrim. After some short films like Essanay, Mutual Film Corporation and First National he became involved in different facets of film making like acting, direction, and production. Some of his films were A Woman of Paris (1923), The Gold Rush (1925), and The Circus (1928). He also made the masterpieces City Lights (1931), as well as Modern Times (1936). Though they were silent films they were immensely popular and had his own music and sound effects. City Lights was by far his most balanced film, dealing with comedy and sentiments.

His talkies made in Hollywood included The Great Dictator (1940), Monsieur Verdoux (1947), and Limelight (1952). While Modern Times (1936) is a non-talkie, it contains dialouges coming from inanimate objects such as a radio. The reason behind this was that during the period of silent films the viewers were not accustomed to the concept of listening to dialogues as well as watching a performance simultaneously. In fact, The Circus (1928) was the first film where Chaplin's voice was heard.

Talkies became the dominant and popular mode of movie making since 1927 but Chaplin was reluctant to the idea as he considered cinema to be a pantomimic art. Now let us look at some of his films in detail.

Limelight tells the story of a once-great stage comedian, whose career has failed leading to alcholism. The man eventually saves the life of a despondent ballerina from a suicide attempt. Monsieur Verdoux is a blistering black comedy released in 1947. Chaplin plays Henri Verdoux, a civilized monster who marries wealthy women, then murders them and uses their money to support his real family.

A Woman of Paris was written and directed by Charlie Chaplin. It was designed to launch Edna Purviance into a serious acting career. The Circus tells the story of a failing circus which recruits the little tramp who bursts into the tent's center ring and wows the audience. The circus owner discovers he is only funny when he isn't trying to be so. He tricks The Little Tramp into joining the circus as a prop man who wreaks havoc with whatever he does and who unknowingly becomes the star of the show.

The Gold Rush is one of his best works. The Little Tramp is a prospector who has ventured into Alaska in the search of his fortune. He gets involved with some quite frightening characters, while falling in love with a beautiful girl called Georgia. The Gold Rush has beautiful cinematography moments.

City Lights is considered his own child. He wrote the screenplay and set the music and also directed, produced and edited this classic movie. Made in 1931, City Lights was made as a film with no speech. The movie is about the ups-and-downs of the Little Tramp, in love with a girl who thinks him to be someone else.

Modern Times is a glorious film that is probably as relevant today as it was in 1936. The film makes incredibly clever use of sound with its rather sophisticated sound effects. Modern Times explores the dehumanization of labour. The film then goes on to describe the closure of the factories, reflecting on the Great Depression in the economy of US at that period.

The Great Dictator is much darker than most other comedies. It is a film with a serious message with satirical overtones. The Great Dictator explores the rising Nazi threat during the late 1930s and early 1940s.

As with all my movie reviews, I shall give you an honest opinion of the movie, going through both its good and bad points. Now, to start with, and I must write this before I forget, I had a major issue with the contingency of the movie, centering around the character Abe Sapian.

Those of you familiar to this series of comic know that Abe is a water inhabitant that in order to survive out in the open must wear the water equivalent of an oxygen tank...though its not exactly a water tank, but anyway I digress. For the first half hour of the movie, Abe wears this tank when both in the Headquarters and the outside world...however, randomly, part way through the movie seems to decide that he can actually breathe oxygen and the water tank disappears for the rest of the movie.

See, in all honesty, this isn't even a small inconsistency...in fact, its actually a pretty large one. Thing is some people are saying its because he randomly got some kind of small adapter, however something like this would need to be explained and would really only go hand in hand with Red getting a new weapon...which by the way he does not.

And now that my rant is over I shall go on to talk about the actual film and story itself. Now most people seem to have mixed feelings about this movie. I quite simply really, really liked it. It's not often I find myself actually laughing at this type of movie, and enjoying it, but I did. In fact its one of those rare Dark Knight occasions, and probably the last for the year as more Hollywood drivel prepares to hit the big screens.

The acting is this movie was brilliant, and the guy that plays the Prince, superb. The make up was awesome and very believable on such characters as Red. And as for Ron Perlman, that guy is highly under-rated as an actor and an action hero. In fact most people seem to forget he was in Alien Resurrection and Blade II...in fact, seems he likes to be in sequels...hmm.

I was however disappointed that David Hyde-Pierce didn't do the voice of Abe Sapien unlike in the first movie, a voice that definitely suited the character, however the voice acting was above par, and if you hadn't seen the previous movie, then you honestly won't care.

Also, a new addition to the Hellboy cast was the infamous and brilliant Seth MacFarlane doing the voice of the robot whom I believe was called Krauss...though I am not entirely sure of the accuracy of that statement. Anyway, his character was completely different the usual Family Guy and American dad that MacFarlane has introduced us to over the past few years, and I was pleasantly surprised at the limitless acting skills that this man possesses.

The story to this new movie was very interesting and successfully managed to keep my attention for the majority of the film, with the random comedy scenes, great action scenes and fantastic general story telling. And even though there will be a lot of people who will disagree with my opinion of this movie, I actually don't care. This is one of those movies that you will either love or hate, and for me this is definitely one of the best movies I have seen all year...not that there have been many contenders.

Is it just me or did watching the movie "Juno" worry any other responsible adult?

I mean, the critics raved about it. The Los Angeles Times said, "'Juno' is hilarious and sweet-tempered, perceptive and surprisingly grounded...". Perceptive? Grounded? How many 16-year old girls have the communication skills, the control over emotions, and the total acceptance and support of the "hippy-go-lucky" parents that Juno had. I found the movie to be cute and well-acted, but also very laissez-faire in that it presented the best possible circumstances in which any pregnant teen could find herself. But is that fair to the thousands of young women looking for answers at a time in our society when we are trying to discourage teenagers from engaging in sex for more reasons than just pregnancy?

As I watched the movie with my husband, stepson, and his 16-year old girlfriend, I couldn't help but wonder if, as she watched Juno independently drive herself all over town organizing her life, she was thinking, "It's not such a big deal. If I get pregnant, I will look in the Pennysaver, find some rich people who want a baby, and in nine short months it will all be over." And how many other teens out there were thinking the same thing? Could it be that in our "uptight" part of the country, we have not managed to have the same resources for teen mothers-to-be as, say, in the Midwest or in the southern states? And could the overcrowded inner city drug and alcohol problems make the issue more complex than it has to be? Maybe not.

It seems that the ease of Juno's pregnancy made sense to 17 girls from the high school in Gloucester, Massachusetts who, it has been reported, are all pregnant, and not by accident. Though details are still sketchy, it appears that the pregnancies were planned and even celebrated by the teens. Are their parents cool enough to give them the support they need? Hope so.

The news reported that, "Superintendent Christopher Farmer said the girls are generally 'girls who lack self-esteem and have a lack of love in their life.'" And although the Superintendent first reported that the girls made a pact to have babies together, the Mayor has said that when asked how he knew, the Superintendent's memory failed. Could he have made up such a story? I doubt it. Older teens from the same area have commented that they felt the girls did this because they were looking for "unconditional love" and acceptance - a clear symptom of low self-esteem.

And so, unlike the fairytale ending in Juno, I believe now we are left to deal with this as a society -- schools, parents, and teens alike. It's unfortunate that the Gloucester girls couldn't see the true and far-reaching consequences of their actions. But I do think the only thing left to do is to try and prevent this from happening on such a large scale again. But how?

I think we need more or better sex education, accessible birth control information, and most important of all, self-esteem programs to help young women everywhere understand how to live independently, to take responsibility for their actions, that their choices don't have to be limited, and that they don't have to follow the crowd. Life is interesting and hard, but holds endless possibilities and they should know that.

I know, I know, Juno was just a movie - a creative expression, an artistic interpretation written by someone who never intended to hurt or even influence anyone. I also understand that not all movies have a duty to go the responsible route and portray both the good and the bad side of each issue - some movies are simply for entertainment purposes. I only wish that had been explained to the young girls at Gloucester High School.

For those of you who think I am making a mountain our of a molehill let me just admit that I am one of those people who worry about the messages being received by our young people, and not really interested in persecuting those who send them. Hey! Maybe the DVD can include a disclaimer that says, "WARNING: THIS IS NOT REAL LIFE"? Oh yea, labeling - no one liked it when Tipper Gore suggested it either.

My wish is that Juno and the events in Gloucester spark discussions between kids and parents everywhere about the seriousness of pregnancy and all of its options and effects. These days a young woman is not shun like years ago when parents sent their expecting daughters "away" for a period of time so they may deliver their babies - but the reality of what happens is the same. A brand new person comes into the world and has to be cared for and loved and financially supported and taught all about the world and how movies are just movies and in no way have any influence over fashion trends, life choices, or who lives and dies.

When you shoot overseas you cannot reproduce the systems, the processes, and the methods you use at home: you just have to understand how to make things happen in a different way. This doesn't mean that you just sit, wait, and pray for the production to go smoothly. It means that you have to understand "the local" methods and try to make them work for you. At times you discover that in the most remote areas of the Globe, a place with an incredibly limited production industry, they are able to achieve remarkable goals in a very unsuspected manner. Occasionally, on the other hand, you realize that it's the moment to teach something to improve the system. But you cannot pretend that shooting in the jungles of Guatemala is the same as shooting in downtown L.A.

The principal thing to understand is that, with the exclusion of a few cities worldwide, there are not many places with a supporting industry as the one we know in the US. That means that local production teams cannot count on a sophisticated structure to achieve their goals. They sometimes have to invest hours in solving problems that in L.A., New York, Miami or London could be solved with one single phone call. But if they are good, they can put together an extremely complex production with excellent results and, often, with a very limited amount of money.

I spent the last 27 years watching production teams in all the Continents organizing productions: I like to observe them, to understand how they proceed and how they work. I accept the local methods that are proving themselves efficient and, from time to time, I import them back home. When I realize that it is necessary, on the contrary, I ask the local production team to work as we are used to in the US. I explain why I believe that our systems are better in this case and why we should operate in this manner.

Only once have I had to fire the production team and start over: only once in so many years and it was in a country where I considered from the beginning it could happen.

In a global production environment some directors are able to extract the best out of the opportunities offered anywhere while others don't. It is a combination of personal and professional attributes what makes a director more prone to work globally. Having to arrive on the set and face an entire crew that is speaking an unknown language and has never worked with you before is undoubtedly intimidating. Even if most of crew members around the World speak English and are used to work with American and European directors, shooting with them requires a certain doses of flexibility and adaptability.

The personality and the attitude of the directors is a key factor when shooting abroad. Some directors, for example, can work only in their environment and therefore are incapable of shooting overseas facing a different culture, new teams, and even eat different food. Some directors can be very creative when shooting in studio in Burbank but they cannot travel to Istanbul without getting sick the first day as soon as a drop of water from the shower falls into their mouths.
Some directors, have the tendency to work with the same crew: if they have to fly to the antipodes to shoot a commercial, they take with them the key persons like the DP, the production designer, the assistant director, and so forth.

It could make sense to fly an art director to Thailand if you need to reproduce there an American look (why are you going to Thailand to shoot a Chicago apartment anyway?) but, if you are looking for a South East Asia look, you should certainly use a Thai professional.

When shooting overseas you have to expect different ways of making things happen. A director should fully understand that and respect the work of his foreign crew: if he doesn't, the situation becomes immediately frustrating for him and offensive for the crew. People all around the Globe are proud of their cultures and resent if somebody coming from another country treats them as idiots and tries to impose a different way of doing things.

The combination of teaching and learning is the right one: the crew members will be happy to learn something new and to change their procedures when it makes sense and when the director accepts some of their ideas and leans something from them. In the past I have seen directors managing very successfully these relationships and others failing miserably.

I produced commercials with directors who enjoyed every moment of the experience of shooting in a country other than their own. They discovered new textures and colors, the appreciate the talent of local crews, they understood perfectly well how to take full advantage of the possibilities offered to them by shooting in Mexico, Costa Rica, New Zealand, Scotland, Italy, Dominican Republic, and so forth.

With the growth of the number of commercials shot abroad, directors have to evolve and become more culturally international as well: they should speak languages, understand foreign forms of art, listen to music from all around the globe, watch movies and short films from all latitudes, follow the tendencies of fashion in emerging countries and stay opened to new information. I believe that absorbing expressions of other cultures makes the directors more flexible and therefore more capable of using the global resources to enhance their creativity.

When a European or American director lands for the first time in Mexico and immediately asks if the Anthropological Museum is opened during the weekend I know that everything is going to be fine, if he or she asks for Starbucks or, and this is even worse, if the water of the tap is drinkable, I become very worried.

If you're doing a follow-up to a film that was enormously successful, not just financially but critically, the pressure is on to produce a film that's even better. In the case of "Spider-Man 3", the results are unfortunately a mixed bag. Although this instalment in the franchise is still light years ahead of the first film, it does fall behind the second film by a fair bit. Part 3 had a strong foundation from which to build upon and the writers and director Sam Raimi have certainly given it a great shot to make the third film special but somehow its just falls under the weight of having too much crammed in to the story (didn't any one learn from the Batman films of the 90's that you don't put more than one villain in to the piece?). As a result, you have a number of storylines that by themselves would have been brilliant but mashed together like they are in this film ultimately leaves them all underdeveloped and unsatisfying. In short, I left thinking of that great line from Homer Simpson, "well it was good, but not great..."

As with Part 2, this film gives Peter Parker/Spiderman a strong character arc. Now having balanced his personal life as Peter Parker and his responsibilities as Spiderman, Peter is now having the time of his life; everyone loves Spiderman, Peter's doing well in class, and he's with the love of his life, Mary Jane. You'd think nothing would go wrong but alas a storm is brewing in the form a growing ego; all of this is now starting to go to Peter's head. This ultimately manifests itself visually and physically in the form of an alien symbiote which attaches itself to Peter, transforming him in to a tougher, stronger black-suited Spiderman. In his new state, he manages to start driving people away from him, including Mary Jane who unfortunately for Kirsten Dunst spends the bulk of the film sulking about her bad turn in life when things don't go her way. Eventually Peter realises he has to get rid of the black suit before it destroys him; as he does so, the alien symbiote detaches itself from him and drops on to Peter's rival at the Daily Bugle, Eddie Brock, transforming him in to the evil, sharp-teethed villain Venom played deliciously by newcomer Topher Grace.

Running along side this is the development of Harry's character in to the new Goblin; having learnt that Spiderman killed his father (or so he believes), Harry now utilises the Goblin technology he found in his father's mansion to transform himself in to a villain hell bent on vengeance against Spiderman. The new Goblin is much better than his predecessor; there's no green mask so we can still see his face. Perhaps they learnt that a villain behind a mask is no good. At any rate, in addition to dealing with the black suit, Peter also has to manage Harry and his constant attacks which ultimately tests the boundaries of their friendship and sets them on course for a love triangle with Mary Jane when Peter's ego pushes her in to Harry's arms.

You'd be forgiven for thinking that this would be enough to sustain the story but wait! There's more! We also have the Sandman. Caught in a scientific testing area while on the run from the police, Flint Marko finds his molecules scrambled with grains of sand, thus transforming him in to the shape-shifting villain, the Sandman. Marko wants to cure his daughter's illness, and through some rather arbitrary retrospective storytelling, we learn he is also responsible for Uncle Ben's death in the first film. When Peter finds this out, he exacts vengeance in the form of the black-suited Spiderman but only with mixed results.

The main problem with this film is that it's trying to do too much. It's juggling too many storylines, too many characters and ends up being a jack of all trades but a master of none. On the face of it, although the Sandman is beautifully rendered (his origin scene ranks as probably the best-executed origin in any superhero film to date, particularly how he struggles to make up his body out of the granules of sand), his story seems to be the most arbitrary. Apparently the Sandman was a favourite of director Raimi but Venom was insisted on by the producer and what's that saying about too many chefs...? Venom's storyline is better integrated in to the plot as Eddie Brock shows up early in the film but unfortunately Venom doesn't show up until the last third of the film (mainly because we get side-tracked by the Sandman, black-suited Spidey and the Goblin story) and as a result, we only get to see Venom in action for about twenty minutes before he's disposed of by Spiderman. Clearly Raimi won the battle as the Sandman lives to fight another day in another eventual sequel whereas Venom dies a horrible, explosive death!

Another story that gets diluted severely is the Peter/Harry relationship. This is clearly the strongest as we've gone through two films of it before this one and it's the strongest storyline on offer in this film but because there's too much going on, even this gets chopped off at the knees, undeveloped (although perhaps not as bad as the other storylines).

There are some bad points. Mary Jane is given a woeful throughline in this film, pretty much just sulking about the bad luck she is getting at the moment in her life and how Peter isn't there for her. Another massive misstep, although I'm sure it was well intentioned, is a truly atrocious scene where Peter, having donned the black suit and brimming with confidence, is pointing the gun fingers at all the cute girls he walks past. Not good.

If they'd concentrated more on focusing the story, this installment in the Spiderman series would have been as brilliant and masterful as Part 2. Instead, we have a film that is still very well done, entertaining and technically well executed, light years ahead of the first film, but ultimately no where near as satisfying as the second film.

Movie Reviews