Reviews

if you are someone who likes the idea of Pierce Brosnan but are not prepared to commit to watching a film that he stars in then UFO, also known as Alien Uprising, is perfect for you.

this film is perfectly serviceable for anyone who wants to watch a film that features people on the outskirts of the life of Pierce, the people who only have a footprint in segments of the Venn Diagram of the life of this celebrated actor.

most prominent on the Pierce Brosnan Venn Diagram in the film is of course Sean Brosnan, the actor's son. he is not to be confused with Sean Bean or Sean Pertwee, although the latter also features.

the Pierce connections do not end there, as Julian Glover out of Remmington Steele, what Pierce Brosnan was also in, features.

if you are looking for a film that has tedious connections to Pierce Brosnan but has no Pierce Brosnan in it, or if you simply think every film should feature no more than 8 minutes of a Belgian actor, then this is for you.

Whilst it is difficult to ascertain which is the greatest Spencer / Hill film - it could arguably be this or He Who Finds A Friend Finds A Treasure - by some distance this is the greatest cinematic performance to date from the legendary Joe Bugner.

Whilst still a heavyweight boxer, and lest we forget a contender for the world title, Bugner somehow managed to find the time to perform in films such as this. Does he make the the transition with success? Oh yes, certainly. It turns out that Bugner is an exceptional actor; what a shame his talents have not been used in too many other films.

Fans of Spencer and Hill will no doubt have seen this film already, but for anyone out there looking for more Joe Bugner than they have already seen then this is the film for you.

whereas American TV from the 70s was littered with "cross-overs" and guest appearances from other shows, it was a rare thing to see in the 80s, and was not something the world would see again until the 90s when shows like Friends and, to a lesser reliant extent Seinfeld, picked up on the concept. the reason for this could be the vast scales which both Magnum and Murder, She Wrote reached with this stunning climactic episode; a height which neither show would never, arguably, reach again.

whereas Angela gives a conventional, superb performance, it was in this episode in particular that Selleck really came into his own in embracing the character of Magnum. the performance he delivers was one he would not equal until the infamous prison sequences in An Innocent Man, and several keys to unlocking the later, more complex relationships Magnum had with TC and Higgins are latent within the subtext of this show. if you never really cared for Murder, She Wrote, you are nonetheless encouraged to bear witness to this episode if you wish to fully understand Magnum.

American television really didn't get as good as this particular episode again until the early 90s series of Doogie Howser, MD. this is must-watch viewing for anyone who sees a television set as something more than a background noise in their lives.

The Phantom Of The Park is one of the most criminally overlooked avant garde cinematic experiences from late 70s. writers Jan Michael Sherman and Don Budaythe have crafted a sublime, quasi-iambic pentameter loaded screenplay which evokes the very finest of 20th Century American writers (only Fitzgerald, say, or perhaps Mailer could have produced better) and allowed it to be transformed into a motion picture which time has proved to be the personification of an entire decade.

outside of his performance in Tom Selleck hit Runaway, this is perhaps the defining role in the astonishing career of Gene Simmons. seldom has he ever been presented with a script of this quality to work with, if the world had not been distracted by the lacklustre performances of Ace surely an Oscar nomination would not have been out of the question.

the special effects on display make a mockery of the claim that Star Wars, released around the same time, broke barriers in this field. they must be seen to be believed, and mercy is on us for the recent DVD release has preserved the artistic integrity of them. James Cameron owes a very big debt indeed to the pop band Kiss.

you know those lists of 1,001 movies to see before you die? well, this really is one movie you must see before you die.

i was intrigued to see how a little-seen 2008 film had somehow won the Oscar for best picture of 2009 and thus went to see The Hurt Locker. sadly, all i got for the two hours invested was the grim confirmation that this film had won awards purely for off-the-screen reasons.

the direction and visual style of this film is some of the weakest you will ever see. when it's not busy being yet another Bourne Identity homage with dire, annoying "shaky cam" visuals, it shows off all the hallmarks of a second rate daytime soap opera in terms of lensing.

the "plot" is threadbare, the characterizations are about as well developed as rejected Beetle Bailey comic strip ideas and the dialogue - on the instances where the film gives up on being "minimalist" and for no apparent reason turns one or two soldiers into right chatterboxes - is some of the worst ever recorded. in fairness, the actors do the best they can in the circumstances, just not enough to obscure how bad the project is.

the whole film has the feel of it being intended as some kind of "mockumentary" that they clocked was bereft of humour and thus re-edited as best they could so as to pass it off as a serious drama.

if you spend two hours on this film they are two hours you will never get back, and two hours wasted that you will regret for the rest of your life.

of the numerous Land Before Time films, this one stands out with some high quality songs and a great storyline.

the two big songs of the film, Big Big Water and in particular Friends For Dinner, are two of the best that you will find in the series of films, and are of the high, singalong quality you would normally only find in a high profile Disney movie.

the basic premise of the storyline, one of how all can work and flourish together despite obvious differences, is a good one, and provides many moments of education for youngsters as much as it does entertainment.

our little one, who is not yet three, loves this film to bits. that's the target audience, and you can't argue with that! watch and enjoy, and be prepared to be singing "friends for dinner" in your head for quite a while after!

in the wake of his awesome debut, Reservoir Dogs, Tarantino could have served up just about anything and it would have been hailed as a masterpiece by all those keen to jump on the bandwagon. he, sadly, did just serve up anything.

on your first viewing, Pulp Fiction does take your breath and look stunning. if you want to join the masses and celebrate this film blindly, you may then want to avoid the rest of this review and never watch the film more than once.

if you be generous enough to let the flimsy, contrived plot threads go by you, the real problem here is what the film was oddly celebrated for - the bad writing and the lousy dialog that shall forever haunt this film. sure, there are one or two smart one-liners, but the problem is that each and every character in this film talks, acts and behaves the same. the lengthy speech given by Christopher Walken, for instance, is the same in tone and content as anything that Samuel L Jackson would say, and likewise Sam just talks like Uma Thurman, who talk like Bruce Willis, who talks like John Travolta, etc, etc ad nauseum.

this, and the subsequent, poorer films he made, revealed Tarantino to be a confidence trickster, a, if you will, one trick pony. what a shame, he looked like he had so much talent and potential.

be brave, do not just follow the crowd and the masses - see this badly written home movie for the low grade, half-dimensional nonsense that it is!!

Looking at some of the comments and the reviews posted, I believe a number of people have misinterpreted this one.

It's no horror classic, granted, but it is a step above your average slasher film. The protagonist is a deeply troubled individual, and you get a well-rounded character as a bad guy for a change. No hockey masks or knife gloves on display here - just a man with fire.

Fire holds a dual role of master and servant, giving an interesting, intellectual slant to the central character. He fears fire, and yet he controls it. Students of the classics of literature will at least be able to relate to 25% of the four elements being given the limelight. It might not be to fire what, say, The Abyss was to water, but it is certainly the best presentation of the subject matter of fire since Backdraft, and the best horror usage of fire since Spontaneous Combustion.

Infamously this film is difficult to track down. If the chance presents itself to see it, there are many worse films to watch.

Dog Soldiers is often referred to as being "the best werewolf film since An American Werewolf In London". considering how few decent, even watchable films about werewolves have been released in that 20 year gap that perhaps is not as saying as much as it could be.

Borrowing more from 'Predator' than any other werewolf film, a platoon or brigade of reserve soldiers are doing their thing in a Scottish forest when they are attacked by some "unknown force", later determined to be werewolves. A simplified plot for you, but often the most simple premise gives you the best tale.

The emphasis is on a mixture of fun and gore, and the balance is perfect here, probably for the first time in a horror film since Evil Dead 2. The cast, relatively unknown, are fantastic, and the effects are a treat - gone is the plague of CGI, here you get special effects that people have worked long and hard to produce and make look convincing.

The Descent, from the same director, may be the superior film in regards of shocks and scares, but one should not overlook this gem. funny, violent and the occasional jump out of your seat moment, Dog Soldiers belongs in the collection of every self-respecting horror film fan.

Rocky Balboa is a great film. If you have any doubts about seeing it, be they for the suspicion of a preconceived idea of Stallone and/or the character to be too old for a plausible plot or your disappointment with the sequels, V in particular, drop them.

At heart this is a true follow-up to Rocky & Rocky II, insomuch as it goes back to a pure, heartfelt character driven plot. I would not want to give away anything, but what we get is a Rocky Balboa who has moved on in years and experiences, yet is still at heart the same guy we first met back in the very first film in the 70's. Older, maybe wiser, but still with the, as it were, eye of the tiger.

In many respects Stallone and the rest could have done a nostalgic sleepwalk through a film, but what you get is some great performances. Stallone and Burt Young return to perhaps their most famous characters impeccably, and the new additions are great - "Rocky Junior" deserves extra special note here.

Much as Rocky III personified the glitz, glamour and prestige of World Heavyweight Boxing in the 80's, so Rocky Balboa presents 21st Century Heavyweight Boxing - seemingly bereft of characters, passion and the huge attention it used to demand. If this film in some way can help the world of boxing recapture former glories and status, then so much the better.

One can't see a seventh chapter in the life of the Italian Stallion, and nor would it been needed - should this be the last time we see Rock, what a great way to bow out. Take any chance you get to see one of cinema's true modern greats revel in playing one of cinema's greatest, most inspired and inspiring characters for one more round.

well, i was tempted by this film as the cover promoted, in equal measures, chainsaws and schoolgirls. what a major disappointment followed such promise.

this is either some sort of student film or one big "in-joke" that only a select few are in on, one of which i am not. the dreary plot, that of a bus breaking down in the middle of nowhere and the passengers being killed one by one, is as long in the tooth as the majority of the schoolgirls here.

it gets a three as there are two rather witty deaths, ones that i have not seen in any other film franchise, but even then they are not as spectacular as they could have been.

and the chainsaw on the cover that tempted me? it has a blade as long as a conventional pencil, and does not get used on anything or, more to the point for the intended market, anyone.

people who harbour a desire to make films one day should watch this just to see how not to do it. everyone else should give it a miss.

An "infamous" film, if you will - never released, but not exactly difficult to get your hands on if you are persistent.

I eagerly anticipated all of the "controversial" moments, awaiting a festival of groupie abuse and substance indulgence. To my surprise, these bits proved to be dull and tiresome, the real gem in this film being the excellent live performances by The Stones.

Years of such consistent, excellent music makes it all but impossible to refer to any Stones era as being "their prime", but the concert footage here shows them well and truly on form and, if you will, on song. It is almost criminal that performances with Tina Turner and Stevie Wonder have all but been buried and forgotten about owing to this film being buried.

I hope one day that this gets a legal, cleaned up release. Edit out all the non-music stuff and just release the concert footage if nothing else, for the sake of all music lovers!

Jack Black is not funny. All he seems able to do is shout a lot and throw in the occasional profanity, sometimes for variety doing it with a contrived, "Deliverance" type drone in his voice.

Tenacious D, or Tedious D, has to be one of the most insipid, uninspired and uncreative concepts of all time. Music parodies have been done before and have managed to be both musically sound and entertaining comedies - refer to the Bad News films from the UK, or, even better, the numerous efforts of Christopher Guest and his many friends.

If you are somehow entertained by Jack Black's overweight and out of date concepts of what is funny, knock yourself out. But remember this - ever dollar spent on a Jack Black film is a dollar not spent on an actor or film which has talent.

Pierce Brosnan and some ludicrous (even by Bond standards) scripts and plots did all that they could to kill the 007 series. Thankfully, the name Bond has not been killed for good, although this film is a temporary adrenalin boost rather than a full resuscitation.

Two key elements save Bond for the future here. Firstly, a sensible plot for a change! Quite a clever one too, and not the standard megalomaniac trying to take over the world. Secondly, Daniel Craig.

Mr Craig was widely expected by the majority, myself included, to be a disaster in the role, since he is not quite as tall as he could be, a little bit on the blonde side and apparently inept in the ways of cars, guns and fighting. Happily, he does the job very nicely indeed. I refuse to compare him to "other" Bonds, that is lazy and will be done thousands of times here. In his own right he does a convincing job and at no stage looks like the wrong choice.

So why only 6 out of 10? Too long for its own good, I'm sorry to say. It spends far too much time on the whole "Bond Begins" scenario, and loses some punch as a consequence. "Batman Begins" it is not. If James Bond needed so much coaching and advice along the way, he surely would not have been placed in the scenario of the plot for "Casino Royale" to begin with? Casino Royale is a very nice way of clearing your mind of the rubbish that was "Die Another Day" and, to a degree, "The World Is Not Enough". Let's just hope that Mr Craig's next outing gets on with being tighter on the editing front.

The Departed is a film I wanted to fall in love with. Instead, I ended up having a prolonged, non-committal fling with it.

The cop-criminal crossover film genre has an impressive benchmark already, namely De Niro and Pacino in Michael Mann's Heat. Scorsese was brave to tackle similar territory in the first place, although granted The Departed takes a vastly different approach to the subject.

This is not a film that will spoon-feed the audience. Any knowledge of the broad plot before you see the film is a bonus, but be wary of spoilers. One cannot fault either the screenplay, something which treats the audience as intelligent, nor can one grumble about the work Scorsese does, as excellent as ever.

The problem comes in with the cast. Why Scorsese is so hot for Di Caprio is beyond me - I will confess this is the best of the Scorsese-Di Caprio films to date, but still all too often Di Caprio looks just out of place and out of his depth. He just does not have the range nor the appearance to pull off the character he portrays.

Conversley, Matt Damon's boy-next-door appearance works to his advantage in this one. I trust that this film opens up some doors to rather more substantial film parts in the future.

Jack Nicholson is good in this. He does not give "the performance of his lifetime". He does not give "one of his top five performances". He probably has done enough to get a number of "supporting actor" awards here, there and everywhere. If this is Jack symbolically handing over the reins to a new generation of actors, it is a misguided one.

Perhaps the biggest disappointment in the casting area is the lack of use of real gems. Martin Sheen, possibly the best actor in the world today to cast as a head or chief of any Police division, seldom does more than sit at a desk. Mark Wahlberg gives a Grade-A, Boogie Nights level performance that suggests maybe he should have been given one of the two leads, but then again who would play his important part in his absence? Finally, a round of applause for Mr Alec Baldwin - a great, understated delivery of a support role that indicates he has at last matured into one of the leading character actors of this era.

Sigh, Oscar talk. If they give Scorsese awards for this, it will just underline the injustice for him not being given such things for Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and so on. If Stanley Kubrick never got an Oscar for his directing, then no director really needs one for any reason other than a nice ornament.

I find it hard to imagine where, with the cast, crew and director involved, anyone who would want to see this film would trouble themselves with a review beforehand, but if you want an opinion then it is to see the film, but hold no expectations of greatness.

An oddity, this film. It boasts a superb cast and an excellent director, not to mention a wonderful screenplay. Despite, or perhaps because of, this, the film really does not add up to the sum of its parts.

The idea of a "perfect" bank robbery going somewhat awry is hardly new, but the twists as to how and why it goes, in a sense, "wrong", and who causes it to be that way creates a new dimension on the genre and makes it rather attention-grabbing. The multi-perspective approach and the focused sub-plots are also a rejuvenation of the heist movie.

But for all the good points there remains a sense of Inside Man just not being as good as it could have been. There is no area of the film you could say is bad, nor one that you could immediately say is the explanation as to why it all feels rather flat.

Basically, what should be one of the most intelligent films of the year ends up feeling like something ideal to watch on a lazy, rainy Sunday afternoon. I recommend the film for such an occasion, but I somehow doubt that this was the intention of Spike Lee when he made it.

On the Spike scale, better than Clockers (what isn't) but not as accomplished as 25th Hour.

the question this film poses is why? why spend all the time, effort and money on yet another version of King Kong to deliver this? Peter Jackson was an excellent maker of quirky, low budget films and then enhanced his reputation with brilliant film versions of the hugely over rated, tedious Lord Of The Rings books. he could have done any film he wants, and he chooses this? the folly of the film is in the bizarre decisions taken in making it.

Jack Black is a mildly amusing comedian, albeit his humour stemming from the fact that he shouts a lot. remove the shouting and the comic elements and you are left with a very dire actor who is a textbook definition of bland. he should have been fired from the moment it was clear he would ruin the film. rather spend extra getting a proper actor and re-filming instead of trying to make the best of a very bad job. the remainder of the cast are visibly psychologically elsewhere when forced to appear with him.

the much vaunted special effects are a disaster area of note. they are years behind what we saw in Jurassic Park in the early 90's when they should be light years ahead of it. they are not worth the effort of sitting through to see, never mind the fact that they are in no way, shape or form convincing.

and talk about dragging your feet - the plot stands still for so many minutes of this film it feels like hours. if i wanted to see people stood on a boat looking miserable for 90 minutes, i would rent a film along those lines. i did not appreciate that this came as a "surprise bonus" in a film that was supposed to me about a massive gorilla, thanks.

anyone recommending that you watch this film has either never seen a proper film, or has some ulterior motive behind wanting you to waste 3 hours of your life.

this film gets the two rating only because of the technical excellence of the cinematographers and the editors.

the original Hills Have Eyes was an exercise in tedium, and this remake speeds up the pace at the expense of making a proper film.

to be honest, i have no problem with the current trend of remaking "classic" horrors, as they often tend to produce some interesting watching. the remake of "Texas Chain Saw", for instance, provided a film that was as entertaining as the original was innovative. but this is nothing more than open pornography in its truest form.

it's hard to understand what this film wants to be. there are no true "scare" or shock scenes, just acts of violence that one tends to find repulsive, unless they are the proud owner of a diseased mind. there is no element of suspense of fear at any stage, so it is difficult to say it is a true horror film as such. as a thriller it is a bit of a dead-weight as the twists are obvious, and as some sort of revisionist dark comedy it fails to give a laugh.

a deeply unpleasant film with no redeeming content. film students may want to look at it for the production aspects which, as mentioned, are rather flattering for this film. otherwise, when you are at the video store, you could rent practically any other movie available and have by far a more enjoyable evening. do not willingly put yourself through this trash.

i had the pleasure of seeing this as a child when living in Australia, and now as an adult i tracked the film down on DVD. 25 years of rose-tinted looking back to it was astute, as watching it again now was just as joyous as watching it back then.

the story of the film, in short, is that of an aspiring singer and her ambitious cousin and their attempts to break out of the mundane suburban life and hit the big time. desperate times, to a degree, expedite the need to hit the big time, but this under no circumstances stops them having fun along the way! Jo Kennedy is fantastic in the lead, and what a voice. rare is it that you get someone capable of singing and acting, and here she is for all the world to see. fans of 80's new wave / new romantic music will love her singing style, and it's difficult not to tap your feet and sing along with it all. the rest of the cast is equally impressive, in particular the young lad playing cousin Angus.

Star Struck is an eloquent, fun and enjoyable way to spend 90 or so minutes of your time. along with the great soundtrack, you get as many bitter sweet moments as you do outright funny ones, and you would have to work very hard to dislike it.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang was all that i had anticipated and much, much more.

the basic premise of the film is a murder mystery, but the threads intertwined with this give the story its substance and sheer brilliance. for those of you who got overexcited about the thematic crossovers of something like Pulp Fiction, here is the concept done properly, with fully fleshed out characters enhancing all the overlapping segments.

Shane Black already had a reputation for delivering quality entertainment as a writer, and here we get to experience him delivering the same and then some with full control over the project. his debut directorial work makes you wish that, somewhere along the path of the 80's and 90's, someone had given him the opportunity sooner. KKBB will be hard to top, but let us hope his second film comes sooner rather than later.

an outstanding cast entire has as its figureheads two of the more infamous crop of current actors, Robert Downey jnr and Val Kilmer. both overtake their previous best-ever performances and deliver astonishing performances. when you finish with this film, you will fell compelled to get your hands on every other film they have done to either watch or re-watch, so refreshing of the mind are they here.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang works on so many levels that it is hard not to think of a target audience which it isn't suitable for. this was criminally overlooked at the majority of movie awards, don't you as an audience make the same mistake; you will be the only loser if you do.

whereas adult cinema really exploded as entertainment in America in the 70's, the French made it into an art form. Adorable Lola, along with "Le Sexe Qui Parle", are the two shining examples of the way above average adult movies to come from France at this time.

any film of this nature featuring Marilyn Jess is pretty much a hallmark of a high quality production, and never more so than with this film. as well as being a very impressive work of adult erotic entertainment, she leads a cast in giving performances above the accepted normal for an adult film.

if you are sick and tired of the ever-increasingly extreme, theme-free adult movies of today, you could do a lot worse than go back in time and see this masterpiece. there's enough off the beaten track stuff contained in it to satisfy most tastes and yet it remains a delicately crafted masterpiece.

i was really very sceptical of sitting down and watching this film as all anyone could say is "Brosnan is no longer Bond", "it's like a Bond parody" and so on. what nonsense, and how it nearly stopped me from watching a very good film.

to get rid of that conversation, what we have here is Pierce Brosnan going back to being a good actor, after being a very decent James Bond in a number of very bad Bond films. he is excellent in this in the performance in its own right - make comparisons and you miss out on a good film.

the very post-modernist plot makes numerous assumptions on the audience, but they are not leaps into rocket science. well done to the maker for not spoon-feeding the audience every minute detail. the best comparison i can give thematically is, well, where Guy Richie's Revolver failed at every level of abstraction and audience dislocation, this is an abundant success.

see if you like, wacky, off-beat stuff, and have a good belly laugh at some dark humour.

when i found out this film was at last available on DVD, i spent a fortune getting it shipped in from the States. it is a true comic masterpiece, and something of a tragedy that it is not well know. all the more tragic is that the guys who made it, for the most part, did very little afterwards.

Pondo Sinatra is the epitome of the word "dude". he is all men as he is no man, if you follow, and one cannot but help revel in his journey from no-good, frustrated and aroused nobody towards being a quasi-Napoleon type leader or figure of adulation.

it's tempting to highlight certain scenes, but i would rather encourage you to go out and discover this gem of a movie for yourself.

as with other comments, i would say a big plus for this film is the soundtrack. i discovered just how good The Buzzcocks were thanks to this film, and the rest of the music is equally good.

a unique, original and downright funny film in a very worn out and repetitive genre. waste no more time on pale, watered down trash like the American Pie films and discover the film that they all wished they could make.