vaudevillejones

This was a film that I came to with high expectations. After the awful 'Signs', this looked to be Shyamalan back on form. Unfortunately, I found it a huge disappointment.

This film is an attempt to capture... what? It mainly deals with life in an isolated village in the 19th century. But then Shyamalan throws in elements of Gothic horror with the knowledge that there is something nasty in the woods. There are two major twists, both of which are fairly predictable.

In fact, one could say that this film looks like someone else trying to emulate M. Night Shyamalan. So on top of the predictable twists, there are lots of... slow... sequences... and pauses... to add atmosphere... which become... frustrating... after a while. Add in the "I like the language in The Crucible" style of period dialogue, and the whole thing starts to look pretentious and smug.

Better than 'Signs', but still far from M. Night Shyamalan's best work.

This is the second Asterix film and, frankly, it's much better than 'Asterix the Gaul' (the first Asterix movie). Partly, I think this is because it's actually less faithful to the book than the first film. As a result, there are jokes that work far better on the screen than on the page, there are new scenes and there are even some fairly decent musical numbers.

I only have one real complaint about this film, and that is that a lot of the jokes lack subtlety- they are carried on beyond the point at which they remain funny.

That aside, not a bad film. More for the kids than the adults, but fairly entertaining nonetheless.