Reviews

9 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
How the mighty have fallen!
4 March 2001
This should have been a good film. Fine actors, a fair story line, violence and guns a plenty.

I hope no-one in Law Enforcement sees this one.

How did the Sheens get their police jobs? Incompetent doesn't describe their performances. I'm a big fan of shootouts, especially the John Woo style with vast expenditure of ammunition, but these were insultingly bad.

Charlie does justify his appalling aim in a scene with his wife where he tells her that he is coming home to his family rather than spending time at the firing range. (He should have spent half the film there if you ask me)

There is a scene where it occurs to me that someone had reduced the powder loads in their ammunition to the point that they bounce off car body panels at 5 metres. (This also explains why the guns jam, there isn't enough power to work the action)

I could have done better. Even I could hit a van at 5 metres!

Watching this will have you squirming with embarrassment for the Sheens, and wanting to help them shorten the film by an hour by actually aiming at things.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Leave this one on the shelf!
15 September 2000
I have been watching the unrated DVD version, which has a different ending to the cinema version, as it has been restored to a "director's cut". The plot is fairly simple, 'Nam vet's friend is paralysed by vicious gang, 'Nam vet kills gang, finds he likes it, and becomes a vigilante, cop chases 'Nam vet. The film seems dated now, and the hero sports the kind of hair cut that would cause you to fall over laughing, rather than cringe with fear. There are some nasty images here: a head is chopped off, people are tortured with a soldering iron dipped in vaseline (I don't know what the vaseline is for, but I thought it was odd) and there is an attack with a small rake that I've never seen on film before.

Personally, I didn't enjoy it very much. I'm sure that I've seen it before, although the violence was toned down, and managed to forget it all except one scene (more later) that I have always remembered, but couldn't place.

I couldn't really recommend this film, I watched it all, and wasn't impressed.

Most memorable scene?

This is the film where the detective cooks his hot dog by suspending it from two forks connected to his desk lamp- remember it now?
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
X-Men (2000)
Good, but could have been better..
15 August 2000
First off, I'm a big fan of comics made real (we don't talk about The Phantom though!!), and I enjoyed this film. I was a bit irritated at the obvious priming for a sequel that was going on throughout the film, leaving me expecting more, there was certainly time, as the film is quite short. I can't say too much, without spoiling the plot, but I couldn't really see why Magneto was doing what he was, when the more obvious course of action was how the film ended anyway.

Facade

Why didn't Magneto use his powers to bend Wolverines little adamantium skeleton? I would have!
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Chicken Run (2000)
Something is missing.....
3 July 2000
I expected to enjoy this film, everyone said I would enjoy this film, the TV and Newspaper hype said I would enjoy it, but I didn't! The animation was excellent, but I was disappointed by the final product. It lacked the humour and inventiveness of Wallace and Grommet, and seemed lifeless to me. There were a few amusing scenes, as opposed to funny, and a few good one liners, but really this is not enough.

At least they don't sing all the time....
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Rock (1996)
9/10
When will the bad guys learn?
25 June 2000
First off, I enjoyed this movie. As usual, if I had directed it, it would certainly have been better! The actors give very good performances, and the action scenes are exciting, and well shot, even if the locations are a little unbelievable. (Is there really a vast abandoned mining complex beneath Alcatraz? Why do all furnaces have unnecessary cogs and pulsed flames, like the crusher in Galaxy Quest?).

My main gripe is with Ed Harris. Why on earth does he give the government so much time? They could effect an electronic transfer in minutes, so 4 hours would have been ample. Mind, this would rather have shortened the film!

On a technical note, is that really how chemical weapons are constructed? BAN THEM NOW: THE RISK OF DISASTER IS TOO GREAT! The bomblets would never survive being carried to the launcher, never mind being fired!

Facade
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sweepers (1998)
Frustratingly Unbelievable! Dreadful Film..
30 May 2000
Warning: Spoilers
I didn't like this film one bit. I actually think that it was worse than "Deep Blue Sea" in terms of the stupidity portrayed by the characters. Its one if those films where you sit on the edge of your seat shouting "Shoot him, shoot him now, hurry up and shoot him or he will take the gun of you" and "Don't do ____ "

Anyway, the whole thing is one frustratingly unbelievable event after another.

SPOILERS: As if you could spoil this!

Here is my list- I suppose these count as SPOILERS of a kind so be warned!

0) (forgot this one) Just watch them deal with the mine! Look out for gems like "walk where I walk", yeah, so how do we get back then when we haven't marked anything?

1) When attacked by the helicopter, Dolph has a hunting rifle, which easily outranges the assault rifle in the helicopter. Dolph fires one shot, killing the rifleman, but then throws his gun away, and drives off- doesn't he carry ammunition? Doesn't he pay for his guns?

2) Then 2 helicopters attack. Dolph has no rifle, and can't hit anything with about 70 shots from his pistols (he has about 50 magazines for each [all different]), but brings it down with a flare pistol.

3) Why does the girl reverse off a mountain? Why don't they drive back? The Landrover looks perfectly drivable to me.

4) In the bad guys bedroom, Dolph is going to shoot a naughty man with his combat shotgun, but it gets kicked out of his hands easily (what would have happened if he had fired it? He would have dropped it if he was holding it that loosely), so he has to hit and kick and bite and gouge, with me saying "shoot him Dolph, you have a gun stuck in your trousers" about 50 times.

5) The naughty people kidnap the girl and fly her by helicopter to the secret mine, arriving AT THE SAME TIME as Dolph, who has walked it!

6) In the mine, many chances to shout "shoot him" etc, until the implausible ending, when Dolph is able to shoot about 30 people straight off.

7) You won't believe what happens on the train. Is abject incompetence a pre-requisite of being a bad guy? (As well as a huge cargo of exploding oil drums)

8) Dolph's flesh wound seems much better after his little swim.

Note to foreign powers. Don't buy those landmines- they are much too unstable! (and anybody can just turn them off in the 15 second delay time)
10 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
What Would You Do?
5 September 1999
This film was shown recently as part of the Channel 4 War Weekend. I found it to be well made, and contained some very powerful images, of the German forces in occupation.

My only reservation is that I found it difficult to track the passage of time within the film.

The film deals with a woman, who is relocated to London, following Partisan activity at her home village. She becomes a Collaborator, not particularly from choice, but from circumstance. She is faced with a simple choice: work for the state, or don't eat. The film presents the Partisans as terrorists, whose methods differ little from the Nazis, although their objectives are purer. The film certainly made me think more about the life of the civilian in occupied territory. You could become a partisan, and act as a terrorist, or work for the forces of occupation, either directly, or indirectly. Or you could starve.

Well, what would you do?
23 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What is this film about?
27 August 1999
Warning: Spoilers
Although I enjoyed watching this film, I am at a loss to explain why, and feel as if I have missed the point somewhat.

Spoiler Alert! Here is the plot, minus the last scene: I have to leave you some reason to watch it!

Sammy (Ayub Khan Din), and Rosie (Frances Barber), are a couple with a particularly "open" marriage, both being free to see a string of lovers, yet spending mealtimes and weekends together.

The film begins when Sammy's father, Rafi (Shashi Kapoor) is returning to England, to see the son he abandoned as an infant. Sammy is seeing his lover, an American photographer with a "W" tattooed on each buttock, (Yes, he asks her to explain it!), while Rosie visits a client (to do with her job) who turns out to have killed himself. At the same time, a police raid on a house in the street ends up with the death of a woman. This sparks a riot. Rafi arrives by taxi, driven by a one-eyed driver, to find the street cordoned off, and Rosie on the pavement. Rafi and Rosie go into the flat, which is filled with a Bohemian collection of Rosie's friends, including two lesbians Rani and Vivia, who seem to be journalists, who know something about Rafi. Sammy arrives, and the three exchange pleasantries until Rosie leaves to see one of her lovers. Sammy asks her not to go, as by this time there is a full scale riot outside. She leaves, and the camera follows her, as she walks through scenes of looting, burning cars, beatings and mayhem, untouched by it all. Rafi and Sammy venture out, and meet Sammy's lover, who is getting rioters to pose mid stoning for her camera, and again are untouched. The next day, Rafi ventures out, to see the woman he stayed with years ago. He is set upon by rioters, and Victoria (Roland Gift) comes to his rescue, and takes him to Anna's house. He invites Victoria back to Sammy and Rosie's flat, and everyone meets there. Rafi reveals that he has received death threats, and wants to give Sammy his money, provided Sammy and Rosie will buy a house "That is not in a war zone". If they can produce grandchildren, there is money for them too. Rosie has learned through Rani and Vivia that Rafi's past includes an amount of extortion, oppression and human rights abuses. She and Rafi argue this out in a restaurant, whilst the violinists try to play louder than the argument. Rosie wants nothing to do with Rafi's blood money, but Sammy is happy to accept it. Following a party at the flat, Sammy ends up with his lover, who announces she is leaving for America, and demands love from Sammy, Rafi sleeps with Anna, who has been waiting for him for 20 years, and Rosie goes to Victoria's caravan. Victoria live with a group of people like the "Circus Archaos". There are flames, people dressed as ballerinas, metal sculptures, intricate chess sets, and a group to serenade Rosie and Victoria. In the light of morning, Rafi leaves Anna and arrives at the flat to find Rani and Vivia in bed together. After a scene he escapes, and returns to Anna's, pursued by a ghostly image of the one eyed taxi driver. Anna now rejects him, after showing him how she has waited for him all this time, and he goes to Victoria's. However, property developers are throwing the travellers off the site, and symbolically bulldoze all the sculptures. Rafi confronts his demon, who represents the hundreds he had killed and tortured. Everybody turns up, and takes Rafi back to the flat, where whilst everyone is sitting round the table, Rafi plays out his last scene in his room.

I can't see the point of the film. We have Sammy and Rosie, who are integrated into their environment, and seem happy, until Rafi's arrival splits them, and we have Rafi, who cannot live like them, but neither could I, or I suspect, a good many other people! Maybe someone else can enlighten us.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Surprisingly good "Slice of Life".
23 January 1999
I found this film thoroughly watchable, and compulsive viewing. I think this was mainly because of the believable main characters, a group of Asian women.

The film itself is a compendium of stories, each person having their own set of problems.

The main cast are members of the "Saheli Women's Group" on a day trip to Blackpool. There is Ginder, a battered wife who has left her husband, a young girl who is pregnant by her black boyfriend, two old women stuck in the past, a vampish "mutton dressed as lamb", and two teenagers chasing boys.

There are some nasty reminders of the prejudice in our society, such as an encounter with louts in a Service Station. There are also some amusing scenes, the teenagers ridiculing their elders for example, yet the mood swings very quickly one way and another, as they are pursued by Ginder's husband and brothers, picnic on the beach, make friends with the locals, and visit a nightclub.

The film's main weakness is the number of issues that it tries to address, it's strength the "ordinariness" of the actors, who could each fill their roles in real life.

On a scale 0-10 7. Expect to be drawn in rather than entertained.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed