The Chronicles of Riddick (hereafter referred to as TCOR) is shockingly good. This is a first rate science fiction film, visually and thematically.

I recently heard a critic on television say "Why would Judy Dench appear in such a thing?" To which the other critic on the show says "I guess she has to pay the rent." To which I say "Maybe because the 'Elemental' is a marvelous role, which she acted beautifully, and her character adds an important dimension (and layer of possibilities) to the continuation of the franchise - which I hope it becomes."

My expectations going in were very low, given that rottentomatoes.com shows 70% negative reviews by mainstream critics. Some of the comments seemed to paraphrase what other "important" critics had to say. Why is this, I wonder? Is there a "get on the bandwagon" mentality here that has nothing to do with the movie, and more to do with inventing pseudo-clever negative comments? What are critics looking for in a science fiction movie that this film fails to deliver? Do the critics (who panned this movie) read science fiction? Do they have a frame of reference for characters and plots beyond Star Wars? Should they ask the Wizard for a brain? OK, I'm off the soap box now, except to say that a very similar thing happened to "Underworld" which was thoroughly Underrated.

TCOR is the sequel to Pitch Black, another fine film, but Pitch Black is pale compared to this spectacular effort. I won't go into the details of the TCOR plot. Suffice it to say the script is well written and expertly executed. I saw this movie with a person who HAD seen Pitch Black and another person who had NOT seen it. Neither person had any problem following the plot of TCOR, and we were thoroughly entertained from beginning to end. Vin Diesel has made the Riddick character into someone you can care about, and I look forward to the next installment of TCOR.

UPATE 2012: Alas, there was no sequel.