BOTTOM LINE: Good film about Elizabeth's adult life, but focusing too much on the Queen's melodramas.

THE GOOD: The film delivers a fair account of the internal psychology of being a Monarch. The film delves in to the personal life of the Queen and offers a very human side to her; at times, she denies herself the simple pleasures of life to ensure she can carry out her duty as Queen (suggesting at one point that her close matron of the Court, Beth, be allowed to sample these pleasures for her). Cate delivers a brilliant performance as Queen Elizabeth, showing us a very strong, yet vulnerable monarch. Supporting players such as Geoffrey Rush, Clive Owen and Abbie Cornish are excellent. Period pieces often have the chance to show off production and costume design and this film succeeds extremely well in these departments. The film doesn't drag, with some solid acting, dramatisation, and cinematography. The music score was good.

THE BAD: This film deserves the 3-hour epic, full widescreen treatment. There were moments in the film where you feel it's about to break out and deliver the cinematic impact you're expecting, particularly with the impending battle with the Spanish armada, but the film chooses to return to Elizabeth and her personal life/problems. Not that spending time on the latter is a bag thing (and in fact is necessary even though it stoops in to melodrama), but the scope of the film seems diminished by focusing too much on her personal melodramas rather than her accomplishments as the Queen of England. As such, the storyline with Phillip of Spain almost comes across as an afterthought; he just pops up enough times to give the appearance of a threat, but not enough to make any kind of impact on the narrative. And being set in 1585, Elizabeth is historically meant to be 52 years old, yet Cate, lovely as she is, appears much younger than that!

Sly Stallone hit the big 62 this year, coinciding with the release of Rambo which comes 26 years after the release of First Blood. The Stallone career has spanned four decades and he started out in the gritty melting pot that was post-war Hells Kitchen in New York. He was adamant about becoming an actor and after some small bit appearances he managed to find his big break alongside Henry Winkler in a film called Lords of Flatbush.

It was not only acting that he was interested in and he started banding around ideas for scripts and in 1975 Stallone saw the Ali vs Wepner fight which set his creative juices flowing. He wrote and starred in Rocky the story of an underdog boxer which set up one of the most lucrative film franchises of all time. Stallone became the third person ever to be nominated for writing and acting in the same year, alongside Charlie Chaplin and Orson Welles.

The post-Rocky career saw him take much more creative control of his projects. He followed the success with FIST and Paradise Alley in 1978 and then Rocky II in 1979, all of which he wrote, directed and starred in. He then did Nighthawks and Victory in the next two years until 1982 when he release Rocky III and First Blood, establishing the Rambo phenomenon.

Again he wrote and directed both of these films, First Blood grossed over 47 million dollars in box office sale then 23 million in rentals and Rocky III grossed 125 million at the box office and 66 million in rentals. This combined hall of over 261 million dollars truly established Stallone as an movie franchise and this continued into the 1990s.

He opened the 90s with the fifth instalment of the Rocky series then has a series of box office smashes including Cliffhanger, Demolition Man, The Specialist, Judge Dredd, Assassins, Daylight, Cop Land and Get Carter. It is easy to forget how many successful films Stallone has made however not all industry commentators see it the same way, he was awarded the Razzie for worst actor of the century with 30 Nominations and 10 awards.

Sylvester Stallone is not for everyone however you cannot deny his path from Hells Kitchen NY to a seat of extreme power in Hollywood. He was also a founding member the of the Planet Hollywood franchise with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis. With the release of Rocky Balboa in 2006 and Rambo in 2008, Stallone should probably not expect any more Oscar nominations but he can expect a hefty pay day as Rambo V is currently in pre-production.

At the beginning of series 5 of the X Factor I can't help wondering why some contestants put themselves through excruciating auditions. Some are embarrassingly bad and I can only think that they are either suffering from delusions or they know just how bad they are but still think it worth the embarrassment to appear on TV.

This year the popular UK TV music talent contest has attracted over 180,000 contestants at auditions up and down the UK. All of them dream about hitting the big time and winning a lucrative record contract. Though this year one of them was more interested in meeting and giving her idol, panellist Louis Walsh a red rose. Just as well she was there for love - she isn't exactly a singer!

The panel of 4 judges has altered this year after Sharon Osborne quit. I liked Sharon being in the show and felt that she offered experience, compassion and was pretty good at standing up to judge Simon Cowell - billed as the most influential man in pop. She knows what she is talking about and calls a spade a spade - sometimes OTT but not to the point of cruelty as sometimes happens on the X Factor.

The official reason for Sharon quitting is not being offered enough money to work on the show for 6 months a year, but there are also rumours that conflict between Sharon and panellist Danni Minogue was the real reason. On the Graham Norton chatshow Sharon likened Danni to her backside and said "She knows she's there because of her looks, not because of her contribution to the music industry."

Personally I have wondered why Australian singer Danni Minogue is on the panel. She seems a bit too wishy washy to me and not as knowledgeable as the other panellists. Although her act Leon Jackson won last year I agreed with the other judges when they often criticized her choice of songs as a mentor. Maybe my view isn't fair, although it's supposed to be reality TV I wonder just how much is real.

Replacing Sharon is Girls Aloud star Cheryl Cole. The girl band won TV talent show 'Popstars: The Rivals' 6 years ago and having been a contestant herself should understand what the contestants are going through. It's early days with Cheryl as a panellist but there are already rumours that her and Danni don't get on!!

Simon Cowell is the mastermind of the X Factor and is also behind the TV shows Britain's Got Talent and American Idol. A very busy man who to me appears to have a Jekyll and Hyde personality. Sometimes his remarks about contestants singing or appearance are very caustic and rude. Then at other times he mellows and is really nice and helpful to the contestants. I've often wondered if the cruel or blunt comments might be purposeful to help increase the viewer ratings!

Dubbed King of the Irish Pop Scene Louis Walsh is the fourth panellist. I sorta like Louis but not enough to give him a red rose! There occasionally seems to be some rivalry between Louis and Simon but not enough to mar the proceedings.

The first 2 shows of the 2008 series have already produced some dramas. Notably one contestant made claims about his childhood that were then disputed in the press. As he is a great singer and a hunk I couldn't give a flying fig what the press says. I want him to do well in the series because of his talent and not because of his background whatever it is.

On the first show panellist Cheryl Cole walked out of the audition room in tears when she realised that she knew the contestant Nikk Mager. Nikk was a fellow contestant of 'Popstars: The Rivals' and Cheryl did not want to make public judgements about somebody that she knew. I don't blame her for that; I couldn't have done it.

Once the initial auditions are over the selected contestants go through to bootcamp where they go through a further selection procedure. After that they are split into 4 groups: bands, female singers, male singers and over 25s. Each of the panellists is allocated a different group to mentor and the contestants in their group get to visit the panellist's homes where the finalists are chosen - 3 for each group.

By then only the best acts remain and we should be treated to some great shows. Last year my favourite act was Welsh singer Rhydian Roberts. He put on an amazing performance every time that he hit the stage. His Phantom of The Opera gave me goosebumps, a great singer and performer that left me spellbound.

This year it's wide open with many auditions still to be seen. I would like to see a band win for the first time instead of a solo artist. Next year who knows? It won't be me that's for sure, I don't want my mouth comparing to a cave or my singing likened to stepping on a cat even if it is true!

I guess you could say that I am an old fashion girl. I love a good movie and dinner date. I love being escorted to the movies by my husband and standing back while he pays for the tickets. Yes, it can be fun cuddling at home on the sofa while watching a movie, but there is something to be said from having your man take you to the theatre, hold your hands and make over you. It just makes me feel like we are dating again.

However, lately, it has become difficult to enjoy a good movie with all the disruption. For some reason, going to a movie theater can bring out the worst in people. Noisy chewing, excessive laughing and even cell phones can quickly become annoying. No one should be forced to play theater police. So I have I decided to address some basic manners to display when going to the movie theater to help make it pleasant for everyone.

Be on time. Don't enter a movie theater after the film has started. But if you happen to arrive late, don't be choosy about your seat. Take the one closest to the aisle.

First things, first. Go to the bathroom and buy your snacks before entering the screening area.

Be quiet! Save all talking until the final credits have rolled.

Sit still. Please refrain from kicking the seat in front of you because you want to rest your feet on the back of chair. This is annoying and very unkind to the person in front of you.

Neatness, please. Carry out all trash at the end of the movie.

I realize this may seem petty, but trust me, it really is very important. Movie outings have become, at times, painful for many people who only want to have a peaceful evening at the theater. And for girls like me who just want to feel special by spending a quiet evening at the theater with her man, it can be very important to many of us. So the next time you go to the movie theater, think of this simple southern girl who just want to enjoy a nice, peaceful evening at the movies. Remember, "People are like diamonds, they sparkle once they are polished."

Tom Cruise as a bad guy? I guess he had to try it eventually and although he is still playing just a variation on his normal persona, he does convey a sense of menace in his portrayal of contract killer Vincent in director Michael Mann's suspense thriller, "Collateral". It's intriguing to see a big film star take on such a dark role and Tom Cruise slips in to it quite well. He is amicably assisted by co-star Jamie Foxx as the shy taxi driver Max who unwittingly takes Vincent as one of his passengers, only to realise he will be used as a courier while Vincent goes around executing his targets. It's a solid, entertaining thriller, but it is let down by some dreadful visuals, but then again, you either love Mann's style of shooting or you don't. I sit with the latter. Bumpy hand-helds, under-lit images, extreme close-ups and odd angles made me ask myself, why am I watching an extreme close-up of Tom Cruise's right ear (amongst others...)? It's an odd dynamic, especially as Mann is utilising a great script and elicits such strong performances from the lead actors.

The film starts off simply by Vincent bumping in to his contact at Los Angeles Airport, picking up a brief case which contains the information pertaining to the executions he has been hired for. He walks out of the airport and catches a cab. Max doesn't pay attention at first when Vincent hails him; Vincent goes to the next cab but Max waves him back, saying he'll take him. The notion of random chance is played wonderfully in this scene; if Max hadn't called him back, he wouldn't have ended up having a nightmare of a night with Vincent. There's a rapport that builds between the men when Vincent offers Max six hundred dollars to be his personal cab driver for the night. Max agrees, not seeing the harm. It all goes south when at Vincent's first stop a body lands on Max's cab, courtesy of Vincent's handiwork. When Max realises what has happened, he tries to untangle himself from the situation but ruthless Vincent won't have a bar of it; rather than take the risk that Max will call the police, he forces him to keep driving him to each destination on his list so he can make his round of executions. Eventually Max overcomes his shyness and stands up to Vincent, eventually saving the life of Vincent's final target and killing Vincent in the end.

All of the scenes with Vincent are cold-blooded and clinical. When two men tie up Foxx to his steering wheel, steel Vincent's brief case and Max's wallet, Vincent comes out just in time to confront the men. He appears to surrender, especially as one of the men waves a gun at him. Then suddenly, in less than a second, Vincent guns down the two men and takes back his brief case and Max's wallet. And in a brutal turn, when one of the men tries to stand, Vincent shoots him again in the head as he walks off. Then there's the scene in the nightclub where Vincent calmly makes his way towards his target, quickly killing off security men who try to stop him. Vincent eventually gets his man, shooting him in the head and upper body before retreating as if nothing had ever happened. In all of the scenes there's a detached, clinical and almost robotic quality to Vincent that makes him extremely sinister, yet very compelling to watch. He's a predator who makes his more cleanly and efficiently.

Jamie Foxx is great as Max. He conveys the every-day Joe quality very well, especially when he's pushed in to such an extraordinary situation with Vincent. Foxx's performance is quite understated for the most part, even when he finally does stand up to Vincent towards the last quarter of the film. In many ways he is the equal of Cruise on screen, and has at the very least as much screen presence as the big movie star.

As I mentioned from the outset, Michael Mann's visual style leaves a lot to be desired. Maybe he's trying to be different, but to be honest I found a lot of the images to be quite poorly produced. He shoots with a high definition video camera for much of the night sequences - nothing wrong with hi-def but the lack of lighting makes it look akin to a home movie. There's some bizarre angles on things; I already mentioned the extreme close-up of Cruise's ear in one of the opening shots, but there are plenty of others, such as the bumpy camera work that gives you a headache, some bizarre focus pulls with the subject in the foreground out of focus with the background in focus. But perhaps my favourite is the final shot when Vincent drops on one of the seats on the train, dead. It's framed very poorly, doesn't look balanced, or even straight. Again, maybe he's going for something different to the norm but maybe there's a reason why so many directors follow a certain form - because it works maybe?

"Collateral" is an engaging thriller that will grab your interest throughout with its story and characters, but is let down by some dreadful visuals.

I bet about 99% of all those who read this article or look deeper into the issue will be much more thankful that they weren't born into a famous, celebrity family. First comes the issue of fame and privacy. Apart from not getting any quiet time at all when the paparazzi and a horde of screaming fans get a hint of your whereabouts, being a celebrity can really hurt your personal life. A ton of broken marriages and divorces have been the illegitimate children of fame and fortune. A lot of celebrities and their family members get into bouts of depression, alcoholism and violence, which can circulate faster than wildfire in the tabloids and ruin you for life. And the last minus of being in a celebrity family? You might get a really, really ugly sounding name!

Now we all know that celebrities are famous for making really strange life decisions. And apparently that includes the way they name their children. Many a celebrity child has found him or herself with some of the weirdest sounding names this side of Prince Michael. Probably one of the oddest baby names ever in celebrity history was given to the daughter of Frank Zappa. Being a rock legend and all makes committing a few weird things here and there absolutely forgivable but naming your daughter 'Moon Unit' is stretching it a little bit. Moon Zappa,a s she is known by a lot of people, has siblings that sport almost equally odd sounding names such as Dweezil, Ahmet, and Diva Thin Muffin. Now that's a rock star family for you.

And it's not only rock stars who have weird tastes in names. Shannyn Sossamon, who is known for her roles in movies like 'A Knight's Tale' and '40 Days and 40 Nights' gave birth to a son with Dallas Clayton in 2003. And because of her intense love for music, she decided to name her son 'Audio Science'.

I was never a toddler who appreciated the bombastic yet heart-pounding sights and sounds of the quintessential movie going experience. On a simpler note, I was afraid to go to the movies because of the loud sounds and sometimes dizzying visuals.

But, with my utmost reluctance, my adventurous family took me to see a delightful animated feature on the big screen when I was just two years old. The name of this animated feature was "An American Tail" (1986), which told the heart tugging story of Fievel, a Russian mouse searching for his long-lost family in 19th century America. There are some moments I can still recall to this day: the whimsical song-with-a-moral "Never Say Never," the Billboard Top 40 single "Somewhere Out There," the Broadway-style tune "There Are No Cats in America," and the Brooklyn-accented "Keep Walkin'" (Does anyone recall the scene where Fievel was skittish about walking up the rope to the boat headed for America?). There were also several brilliantly drawn scenes, including a Zeusan tidal wave during the boat trip to America and an eye-winking Statue of Liberty during the film's predictable yet satisfying ending. In addition to seeing the feature-length animated movie during the year of its initial theatrical release, I happened to pick up a Fievel plush toy the day right after I saw the film. Over the next several years, I began to realize that mass merchandising plays a significant role in public relations or, more specifically, the promotion of a major Hollywood hit. I no longer have the Fievel doll I bought that day, but I will always remember how special it was to own something I saw on a screen that I was a wonder for a child like me to behold.

The greatest movies ever made have sometimes been a form of artistic expression for social, political, and even religious controversies we experience in real life. Escapist movies, on the other hand, only allow us to be entertained for a couple of hours without making a point that can effectively provoke the viewer who enthralls in "enlightentainment." What both theses up top have in common, though, is the longstanding debate between the violence that's on the big screen and the almost daily violence that affects our society outside of the theater. As a matter of fact, there have been numerous real-life cases in which certain criminals have based their behaviors on graphically violent films they have seen prior to the heinous acts they've committed. I'm sure many of you may recall some of these kinds of cases. But I don't feel the need to elaborate on this.

On a more personal note, I think that violence in the movies pretty much reiterates what I said in my theses just mentioned. As far back as I can remember, an interesting article in the Connecticut Post mentioned the perplexing terms the Motion Picture Association of America uses to state why a certain movie has been given a certain rating. The 2005 "slasher" hit "Hostel," for example, was not rated R for "violence" or "strong violence," but rather for "strong horror violence/gore and language." What this could mean is that the classification board responsible for rating the picture believed the violence was meant for outrageous horror-movie "thrills" as opposed to more socially conscious depictions of violent behavior. And, like the other students in my class, I honestly do think that action, horror, and other style-over-substance flicks can sometimes go over-the-top with the blood quotient (e.g. Kill Bill, Sin City, Saw, Scream, and Jeepers Creepers).

The thought-provoking masterpieces of world-renowned filmmakers Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese, on the other hand, are a much different story. Never a one to use violence in film for gratuitous reasons, Spielberg's best films have the potential to disturb viewers with their political, social, and historical overtones. In other words, "Schindler's List," "Amistad," "Saving Private Ryan," and the recent "Munich" depict violence as a meditation on the all-too-real horrors of war, slavery, and terrorism. Did I find these films hard to watch at times? Absolutely, but it didn't bother me that he used violence to give these moviegoing experiences a terrific "you-are-there" quality. Scorsese"s films may be more "action-packed," but the most potent works of his career depict violence in ways he has experienced for himself while growing up on NYC's gritty streets. As with other "action" films, the blood leaking from gun or knife wounds may be too much at times. But, unlike conventional films in the genre, he ups the character development and storytelling techniques for reasons all too personal for today's mainstream Hollywood. What we ultimately experience in his films is how street-smart men tend to overpower women and how persistent masculinity affects the characters' overall psychological or emotional complexities. In his "Mean Streets" (1973), for example, a gangster (Harvey Keitel) can't lighten up to his girlfriend's needs because of the conflict he has towards her mentally unstable brother (Robert De Niro) and the "business" he must hold on to in order to become a "made man." Does Scorsesean violence really disturb me? Not really, but it does upset me that contemporary men sometimes can't "calm down" to make love with the opposite sex.

I can't easily explain why young guys my age like movie violence, but it's easy to know that men, in fact, do overpower women in today's society. Just think about it: Rape happens to women more than men, some wives get beaten up by their husbands more than husbands get beat up by their wives, etc. What's comforting about violence in movies, though, is that, regardless of how gratuitous or non-gratuitous it may be, we all know that it's just edited moving images left over from the primal cutting room floor.

I went to see The Dark Knight on opening night on the Imax screen. Overwhelmed, I knew that I had to see it again to give it a proper assessment. Then I got my hands on a copy of it to watch at home and spent pretty much all of last weekend unable to extricate myself from the movie's world. Now that I've seen it a few times, deconstructed it, reverse-engineered it, and savored my favorite scenes over and over, I realize that it's not just great. It's breath-takingly beautiful, graceful as a ballerina, and will be one of those benchmark movies that we judge others against for decades to come.

For all of the comparisons to Heat and GoodFellas, I am mostly reminded of Natural Born Killers. Both movies share a go-for-broke fearlessness in their vision of a world in which what we're seeing is real. They go way over the top, but bring the story in for such a skillful landing that you not only buy it as possible, but probable and even likely given the right circumstances. Batman Begins showed us Batman's world in a way that made it feel absolutely real. The Dark Knight shows us the real world pushed to an extreme where Batman makes perfect sense.

Much of the attention the movie is getting centers on the acting. Everyone's going nuts over Heath Ledger, but I found Gary Oldman as Jim Gordon to be the stand-out performance here. But Gary Oldman is always great, and Jim Gordon is not at the centre of the phenomenon of this movie. The Joker is. Some have tried to make the case that the attention Ledger's performance is getting has more to do with his death than the actual job he did. Bollocks to that. Cesar Romero's is the best screen representation of The Joker as portrayed in the comics, but Nolan's and Ledger's is an absolutely perfect characterization of The Joker as he would be if he were a real guy. And this brings me back to my Natural Born Killers comparison.

I used to love to talk about NBK with people who didn't like it. The most common criticism of it was that it offers its loathsome protagonists as heroes. I then point out that the genius of it is on the social commentary level where it makes the point that if Mickey & Mallory happened for real, in the age of Marilyn Manson on the radio and Geraldo on TV, it would happen exactly as depicted in the movie. And then those characters became genuine cultural icons from inspiring tributes and homages across various media, all the way down to dressing up as Mickey & Mallory becoming a rite of passage for couples sharing their first Halloween together. I don't even want to get into the real-life copycat crimes. I'm getting back to The Joker, I promise.

To get the most out of The Dark Knight, you need to have been following the various viral websites that comprised the greatest marketing campaign for anything, ever. There were websites for everything from Gotham's transit system to the newspaper to the 24-hour news network, complete with a weekly magazine show featuring characters from the movie as guests (all of the websites were 'defaced by The Joker' a week before the film's release). I'm surprised that no other reviews have mentioned the brilliance and skill in how, via these websites, they started telling the story two months before the movie even came out. At the beginning of the movie, when Batman asks Jim Gordon if he trusts the new District Attorney, you know all about him because you followed his campaign and landslide victory on the internet.

But that's all small potatoes compared to what they did with The Joker's own site. For over a year leading up to the release of the movie, 'The Joker' had people sign up to join his organization and then he gave them orders over the internet. It was a big series of flash mob events, the grand finale of which led participants to their local cinema to be the first to see the film's trailer. The campaign had rabid fans appearing in cities all over the world, in Joker make-up, often in large gatherings. And that doesn't even touch on the number of people not taking part in the campaign who painted Joker make-up on themselves in their Facebook profile pics. And this is where The Dark Knight one-ups Natural Born Killers. Oliver Stone held a mirror up to society so as to raise alarm to the fact that we live in a world where people might identify with Mickey Knox - an anarchic psychopath. The marketers of The Dark Knight not only encouraged us but offered us incentives to declare full-on allegiance to The Joker - an anarchic psychopath.

In Frank Miller's graphic novel The Dark Knight Returns, a big part of the story involves young people, without a more appropriate role model, falling under the influence of the villain. Within the world of the movie The Dark Knight, I imagine that The Joker would likewise inspire a host of followers, copycats, and imitators, and would probably even use the internet in much the same way that the movie's marketers did. I thought that this would have been something worth exploring in the movie. That is, until I realized that they didn't need to because they had already done so BY MAKING IT HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE. How much more of a nudge would it have taken, were this much power and influence in the hands of an artist with a slightly more anti-social creative vision, to push those Joker-philes to a place where life imitates art in ways that we don't even want to think about? And if that were to happen, you'd have to wonder what kind of force would emerge to stop them.

People have been saying for years that superheroes are our culture's Greek Gods, and their adventures in comic books and movies are our mythology. As technology has improved and the audience has grown accustomed to ever-higher levels of believability, movie-makers have been able to inch ever closer to putting us in a world where Batman and Spider-Man are real. Marvel and the studios they were affiliated with were the leaders in this arena, but Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk each fumbled in their own way. Each served as little more than a step in setting up the eventual big team-up movie, taking the audience for granted. DC Comics and Warner Brothers have not only given us an all-time classic with The Dark Knight, they've gone and innovated the artform to a point where we can barely tell the difference between their world and ours any more.

BOTTOM LINE: An intriguing concept and a cool bad guy turn from Samuel L. Jackson can't save this woeful excuse of a sci-fi film.

THE GOOD: 'Jumper' has a very cool concept: there are people on the Earth who are born with the ability to teleport themselves to anywhere they please. They are hunted by another group of people who wish to exterminate them out of fear that they will ultimately do bad things. It's a great idea for a sci-fi action film and in many sequences throughout the film you get to see Mr Anti-Charisma himself, Hayden Christensen, jump all over the place in a matter of seconds, particularly when you see so many places and locales from around the world on show in the film. Makes you wonder what it would be like to have this power. He's being hunted by Samuel L. Jackson who creates a decent bad guy in Roland, the head of a secret organisation that is dedicated to wiping out the jumpers. This really could have been a wonderful, intelligent sci-fi/action/chase film.

THE BAD: Okay, where to start. Oh, I know, Hayden Christensen. If people learnt one thing from the Star Wars prequel trilogy it would be not to make Hayden Christensen the star of your film. Sorry kid, but you just can't act. He's just as wooden here as he was in the Star Wars prequels, although he does look a touch cooler in this film. This is bad enough but he's not entirely to blame for the mess that this film represents. Doug Liman who gave us the excellent 'The Bourne Identity' and the so-so action adventure 'Mr and Mrs Smith' must have left his judgment at the door. Although there are various directorial touches which give you the same sense of style that his previous films gave, where 'Jumper' falls down is in its rushed script which skimps over so many plot points as to not give them much depth or meaning, and to inhabit the film with characters which you really couldn't care less about. Not even the best actor in the world could save Christensen's character on paper - he's spoilt by his power making him quite the brat, and I found myself actually wanting to see Sam Jackson kick his ass in to the next millenium; not a feeling you want to feel for your main protagonist.

There's no sense of sympathy for that character and without sympathy for the lead (even if he's not a nice guy), you don't really have a hook for the audience. Character motivations are mad, particularly with the character of his girlfriend Millie who by all rights should be wanting to get away from Christensen - while the film goes in this direction, especially after she sees what he's capable of and the way he abuses his power, by the end of it all she has a change of heart and she excitedly goes off with him on adventures! Then of course there's all the scenes where the jumpers teleport in to and out of crowded public areas and no one (except for one scene) seems to be shocked. One ridiculous example is when Christensen teleports his father in to a hospital for treatment. No one ever seems to question how they ended up there in the first place, especially as the teleport occurs in full view of many people and actually damages the immediate surrounding rooms. All up, the film is just too fast for its own good and ridiculous, 'jumping' through plot points rather than taking the time to dramatically explore them and by the time you've had you're fill of Mr Anti-Charisma and the way his antics are ridiculously played out, you'll walk out of the theatre believing you've just wasted your time.