Yeah, about the "actor one-liners" thing? Look at it this way - when you watch a movie with Sylvester Stallone that isn't Rocky, a movie with Bruce Willis that isn't Die Hard or a movie with Arnold Schwarzenegger that isn't The Terminator, do you call these characters by their given names?

If an actor's role has enough unique characteristics, you will remember their movie names, but if they're playing the same characters, you just call them "Stallone", "Bruce Willis" or "Arnie". That's all you'll ever remember them by.

Barney Calhoun? Who's he? All I'm seeing is Stallone kicking terrorist ass with the help of Jason Statham and Dolph Lundgren among hundreds of other ass-kickers.

So why did they bother to call that guy "Booker" when he's clearly Chuck Norris?

I watched this film in college. The whole class was laughing at its attempts at using London slang as satire. I, however, just sat there in disgust. At the end, I was asked what I thought of it. "What the hell was that?!" The whole class picked on me.

Would Kingdom of the Sun have been quite as good, perhaps even better, than the movie it became? The answer remains a mystery, but Disney's most troubled production history since The Black Cauldron led to something unlike anything they've done before - a film that's only a musical when it starts and ends, and the rest is loonier than every single Silly Symphony and whatnot.

Pacha is not a youngster but a careful, imperfect father who is barely given any jokes about his size and has a pregnant wife, and the villain's sidekick looks like a hunk but thinks like a monkey. The main protagonist does not get a love interest (until the TV show, that is), he is just simply a misogynist before he learns that power isn't the greatest gift.

This is a message that the film retains as well as being wacky for the sake of it (as we all knew Looney Tunes to be), and having watched it years and years after I ended my run of watching it countless nights as a child, it still holds up as one of Disney's most entertaining animated films from their studio, even after having watched (and given popularity to) The Sweatbox.

This is one of those films where critics appreciate the craft and style while audiences don't know what the hell's going on. This movie is seen by people as either a misogynistic piece of work or a slow-going mess. Well, as a person who goes into any movie based on Rotten Tomatoes critic scores rather than the bot-infested IMDb average user ratings or Flixster's community of 12 year olds, I can say that while Sexy Beast is still Glazer's best feature film, I see this as an absorbing, haunting look at how sometimes, the real monster is man himself.

Pixar took us into the world of bugs by showing them harvesting, flying, rivalling against another kind and getting eaten by birds.

What Pixar couldn't tell us is that bugs are never noticed, or get stepped on, swatted or burned alive if so, by humans. That, and worms exist.

That's a bug's life indeed, children.