I probably will. I have a thing for Luc Besson films, no matter how little sense they make.

I suspect you'll regret it. The idea of an über-woman who's here to save us all is nothing new in Besson's films, but it's never been handled this badly.
He uses a lot of stock footage in places, to sort of underline points in the film - it actually takes us out of the narrative and feels heavy handed. To the point that I wondered if he'd forgotten to shoot some pages, or once in the edit he thought '[LIFTED], I've ballsed it up. How am I going to fix it?'
Do yourself a favour - watch Limitless, which is pretty much the same idea but a much better film, or AngelA, a cracking Besson film about a supernatural woman who's here to save a tragic man.

I can't believe you're telling to me not to watch a film that not only is from Luc Besson and has 3 stars from Empire, but has Scarlett Johansson in it!! My brain hurts.

Not all, but a lot of the Empire reviewers these days seem to say what they think you wanna hear. Or whatever won't stop their set access and interviews. They tend to be more realistic for the disc release.

Did any of the trailers show the quirkier aspects of the film? All I know is it had a budget of 40 and made 170, with the average review saying it was a mess

Just watch Angel-A if you need a Besson fix.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJHCSodC1l4

Filth - Just a lame attempt at recapturing Trainspotting again. No characters to speak of, just a bunch of stereotypes (we're talking seriously outdated ones here too). There's a drugs or sex scene every ten minutes to try and stop you switching it off, but it's garbage.

I don't need a fix. But if I did, I couldn't bear to get a hit from YouTube

I'm just a bit sad about the whole thing. Is it not like Wolverine (the 1st one) bad, where you know it'll be bad going in, but you go to the cinema anyway coz you're a fan?

I suppose it could be, but by the end I was just getting pissed off with it.

Sin City 2 - Just read that it flopped in America and I'm not surprised. The first hour or so of this film is sheer tedium, a bad attempt at straightforward noir that happens to have comic book elements. The interesting characters are introduced and forgotten about until the second half of the film, probably so you don't walk out halfway through. I suspect Frank Miller did one half and Rodriguez the other; I don't know if that was how the first film was handled or what way the books are, but at least the original made an attempt at tying it all together ffs. This one's a cinema cut and shut. Everything about the first half suggests most of it is on the cutting room floor.

What you actually wanted to see is the final half hour. So it ends in a flash and you think, 'OMF, really? That's what I've paid to see?'. Raging...

I don't know how good or bad the 3D is because my eyesight doesn't lead to good judgement there anyway. I can tell you IME it was seriously dark (styling of the photography?), and infrequent in terms of depth and consistency. Little 'popped'. Another potential problem was that the cinema I saw it in was totally incompetent...

This is actually the worst film I've seen all year. And I don't know if word of mouth killed it already, but me and a true cinema geek were the only people there. We sat talking about Hammer films and old cinemas and it really was the highlight of the screening. I don't even watch Hammer films!

I saw it last night too.
And guess what? I don't agree with pcernie!

You like Iron Man 2!

Honestly, it felt like a bunch of mini stories to me, none of which had a satisfying pay-off. The new characters weren't given much time or dialogue at all to be truly interesting. And the threads tying the characters together are even weaker than the first film. On reading some of the reviews it's no wonder either; two comic book stories, two new ones. Possibly mashed up, I dunno, if Marv wasn't in a scene it was barely worth watching IMO.

I laughed at the Empire review. It was really quite glowing and yet still only gave it three stars. Even the comments were like, 'That's a bit odd'.

What did you make of the 3D out of curiosity?

It was well handled, I thought. We're at the point where we know what we're doing with it, and generally I felt it added to the graphic novel feel of things - the way depth is exaggerated in illustrations for instance can now be translated into the movie. And in this film, it's entirely appropriate to be exaggerated in it's use for emphasis.
In fact, we had a the 3D trailer for TMNT, and the 3D in that is far worse than Sin City 2.

I know what you mean - I watched the first film on BR last night and even then loved the depth of a car leaping on reaching the top of a hill, or Miho doing her thing. Certain films just suit it. However as I mentioned above, I'm not sure my eyes are truly up to the task!

We didn't get trailers what with the film starting half an hour late. And again, that's why I couldn't tell you for definite how good the 3D was supposed to be; the 'Odyssey' is anything but.

Justice League: Crisis On Two Earths - Again, strange feeling I'd actually watched this before, but I'm certain I read the comic because the voice actors chosen were shocking. Slightly Southern-sounding Superman? Baffled Batman?

The laziest thing however was giving some members of the parallel Earth Justice League mob accents!

It was really annoying, cos there's a lot the film does right. The fight scenes and animation are good, brilliant cameos etc, but all ruined in the end by the voice work. James Woods as Owlman is hilarious and he's not supposed to be

Gravity - Liked it until... Well, you can't say much here, but there's only so much 'kooky' Sandra I can take. Stunning visually, though.