For some odd reason they've chosen to do recaps in a drama. Not the 'previously on...', we've got that too. No, they've decided to pepper the SAME flashbacks throughout the series, so we see the EXACT same shot of the heroine in her burning home, for example, over and over and OVER. By the time I was half way through the series I was also sick of the heroine's big round eyes. She only has one facial expression, one of consternation, which is used throughout. The script is pedestrian, the acting not much better, and the characters fundamentally annoying. It feels more like an episode of Eastenders drawn out REALLY slowly than a crime thriller. A big waste of time.
Reviews
27 Reviews
Line of Duty
(2019)
Cliché of a bad movie
29 June 2020
Only made it half way, watching this, out of sheer stubbornness. Completely unwatchable. Written by an 8 year-old with zero skills. Banal, boring - not just predictable but offensively unfunny. Stereotype blacks and gays circa 1980. Doesn't know whether it's aiming for laughs or thrills and delivers neither. Profoundly annoying characters, clichés spewing out of mouths right left and centre. Eckhart must have had a tax bill because there is NO way the script read like anything remotely worthwhile. Not even entertainingly bad, just bad. It's a cliché of a bad movie. How ironic.
Living My Illusion
(2017)
Seriously strange
17 February 2020
I actually paused this half way through to see the reviews on Amazon because I wasn't sure if I was watching a spoof or not. It's a bizarre little picture of a marriage breakdown, which is done in no depth and has zero to do with Instagram and the masks we wear, but quite a lot to do with living in denial and kidding ourselves. Despite feeling almost acted in places, and despite not delivering what it alleges to, it is oddly compelling once you get into it. A weird little curio that does make you think, if only to realise just how common this is and how much we all do it (I carried out my own version of this for 40+ years!). And, for the record, you don't need a life coach to find these things out about yourself, but I would say the biggest advantage is it might speed the whole process up. He managed it in a quarter of the time I did, so perhaps money well-spent...
Flood
(2007)
Turgid, dull and atrociously scripted
13 February 2020
This has an exemplary cast and the idea has promise, but it has one of the worst scripts ever committed to paper. The poor suffering actors are forced to say lines that wouldn't look out of place in a primary school play and they are given not only nothing to work with, but actively made to say lines and perform actions that have you yelling at the screen. Scenes are protracted so that the actors are left gurning into the camera, trying to rustle up some kind of emotion with lines that you wouldn't give to a (talking) dog. All the emotional content, which should be intense, looks hammy and over-acted and it robs scenes of tension and drama. It is unbelievably bad. When you consider this must have had a reasonably large budget, for the CGI alone, then why the hell not give it a decent script?
On top of this it's badly edited, so the scenes are dragged out too long and you are constantly gee-ing it along or shouting, 'we get it, move it on for God's sake'. If any of the stars saw this afterwards it must have been heartbreaking. It even has half-decent CGI. Absolutely unforgiveable waste of time, money and talent.
On top of this it's badly edited, so the scenes are dragged out too long and you are constantly gee-ing it along or shouting, 'we get it, move it on for God's sake'. If any of the stars saw this afterwards it must have been heartbreaking. It even has half-decent CGI. Absolutely unforgiveable waste of time, money and talent.
Searching
(III) (2018)
Dull, dull, dull....
15 February 2019
Only the internet/social media generation could find this film "gripping" or "thrilling" or any of the other hyperbolic adjectives I've seen ladled over it like custard over a second-rate pie. The all-done-through-the-internet framework actually slows the film's action down because it's like everything is being relayed to you third hand, like a bad anecdote from a friend of a friend told in a pub. Also, the actual underlying story is so banal and prosaic it make the film feel even flatter and more pointless when you get to the big denouement. It's also full of tokenism and childish red herrings, like hints of drug use/dealing and online predators; it's Dangers of the Web for beginners.
Finally, it seems to be cursed with bad acting. As these actors are perfectly serviceable in anything else I've seen them in, I can only assume the overwrought melodramatic acting was asked of them. Either that or it's something to do with the format because the actors weren't getting either enough interaction with others or it was too fractured into random scenes so they weren't getting continuity. Or maybe he's just a bad director.
I hate to make the comparison, but it has the same amateur feel as The Blair Witch, and I fear it is suffering from the same 'It's innovative so it's fabulous' BS that plagued its reviews. Innovation is only innovation if it improves things. This ultimate orgy of product placement improves nothing. I can only assume it was its potential for advertising revenue and selling it to the 'yoof' (after all they live their lives this way) that got it made. I'd recommend you only bother seeing it if you live your life for social media and you need comforted that you're not missing anything by having no real life at all.
Finally, it seems to be cursed with bad acting. As these actors are perfectly serviceable in anything else I've seen them in, I can only assume the overwrought melodramatic acting was asked of them. Either that or it's something to do with the format because the actors weren't getting either enough interaction with others or it was too fractured into random scenes so they weren't getting continuity. Or maybe he's just a bad director.
I hate to make the comparison, but it has the same amateur feel as The Blair Witch, and I fear it is suffering from the same 'It's innovative so it's fabulous' BS that plagued its reviews. Innovation is only innovation if it improves things. This ultimate orgy of product placement improves nothing. I can only assume it was its potential for advertising revenue and selling it to the 'yoof' (after all they live their lives this way) that got it made. I'd recommend you only bother seeing it if you live your life for social media and you need comforted that you're not missing anything by having no real life at all.
The Snowman
(2017)
Flawed but strangely compelling
15 January 2019
There are things seriously wrong with this film; actions that appear not to be related to anything that's gone before, for starters, but it's an oddly riveting watch. Visually it is quite beautiful and although Scandinavian settings are hardly unusual any more, this one reveals the landscape, and more importantly perhaps, the weather in ways you've never really seen before. It's very nearly a character all by itself. It certainly influences the people in the movie.
It is acted like a foreign film, so much so that although everyone is talking English it keeps giving a feeling of being dubbed, which is quite surreal. So pervasive is this sensation that it feels like the actors are all foreign language actors who have been coached in their English lines, which, obviously they aren't and haven't, so the effect is assumably intentional.
The whole film has this odd other-worldly feel, with every character strangely detached from every other character - even the married ones don't seem to be able to communicate the most basic details of their calendars and activities, never mind their feelings.
The film is flawed, without a doubt, at times being difficult to follow, or surprising you with what feels like non sequiturs, but it somehow works. It feels real in a strange way, with possibly the one exception of Val Kilmer, who feels terribly out of place, unless you forget he is Val Kilmer, in which case he passes as yet another weird, disassociated character in a film full of them.
If you can forget the connotations of words like crime & thriller in Hollywood movies then you will have the opportunity to find yourself enjoying something that will stick in your mind long after far better crafted films have been forgotten. It also has one of the oddest and most riveting opening sequences in film history. A true curio of a movie that I, for one, would recommend for the sheer perversity of its uniquely skewed vision .
It is acted like a foreign film, so much so that although everyone is talking English it keeps giving a feeling of being dubbed, which is quite surreal. So pervasive is this sensation that it feels like the actors are all foreign language actors who have been coached in their English lines, which, obviously they aren't and haven't, so the effect is assumably intentional.
The whole film has this odd other-worldly feel, with every character strangely detached from every other character - even the married ones don't seem to be able to communicate the most basic details of their calendars and activities, never mind their feelings.
The film is flawed, without a doubt, at times being difficult to follow, or surprising you with what feels like non sequiturs, but it somehow works. It feels real in a strange way, with possibly the one exception of Val Kilmer, who feels terribly out of place, unless you forget he is Val Kilmer, in which case he passes as yet another weird, disassociated character in a film full of them.
If you can forget the connotations of words like crime & thriller in Hollywood movies then you will have the opportunity to find yourself enjoying something that will stick in your mind long after far better crafted films have been forgotten. It also has one of the oddest and most riveting opening sequences in film history. A true curio of a movie that I, for one, would recommend for the sheer perversity of its uniquely skewed vision .
Phantom Thread
(2017)
You can't polish a...
13 January 2019
Yeah..... The tired old cliché of the obnoxious arrogant male 'genius' (he makes boring Norman Hartnell-esque creations) finding his (30 year) younger 'muse', a klutz he can boss about while he treats her like a doormat. He has an unnatural obsession with his mother (run away -run away now!), looks and acts frightfully gay, to the point that his relationship with her is all but celibate, and is a toffee-nosed bully who believes his life is the most important thing on the planet; a raging narcissist, in short. The girl hangs on, and snivels, like his other muses before her, until she decides to render him helpless so he'll 'need' her again (or at all). There's jealous who-runs-this-house? conflicts with the equally weird sister, and so it goes on - and on. Eventually doormat girl decides to make a habit of rendering him helpless, while she continues to annoy him, and so they find - well, what? Happiness? Seriously?
It's a sad testament to what is supposed to be seen as 'deep ' when what you are being offered is just two damaged people wounding each other and passing it off as love. If they were poor, unbeautiful and living on a council estate it would be perceived as a squalid kitchen sink drama with zero believability and little charm. Which just about describes it. A big fluffy confection of utter nonsense. It's amazing what a smear of designer brand glamour can do for a t*rd - and here the real designer brand is Anderson & Day-Lewis his muse - but it's still a t*rd. Stick to watching the McQueen documentary, at least he actually had some genius to sweeten the narcissism.
It's a sad testament to what is supposed to be seen as 'deep ' when what you are being offered is just two damaged people wounding each other and passing it off as love. If they were poor, unbeautiful and living on a council estate it would be perceived as a squalid kitchen sink drama with zero believability and little charm. Which just about describes it. A big fluffy confection of utter nonsense. It's amazing what a smear of designer brand glamour can do for a t*rd - and here the real designer brand is Anderson & Day-Lewis his muse - but it's still a t*rd. Stick to watching the McQueen documentary, at least he actually had some genius to sweeten the narcissism.
Black Panther
(2018)
A genuine surprise
9 January 2019
I very nearly didn't watch this, because it had been so hyped for being the first all-black super-hero movie. I simply assumed it was being given high ratings by the black audience just out of loyalty, but I was wrong. It was refreshingly good, and very unusual. For a change it had some story and characters you could feel some sympathy with and, for a wonder, fight sequences that weren't just there to make fodder for the spin off video games. Ironically, I found it a bit racist, with its overly 'happy peasants in their wonderful country' vibe. Why should an African culture evolve to still keep peasant farmers and straw huts when every other culture that gets technological advances leaves that behind? Also, just taking spears and other primitive weapons and making them advanced also smacked of racism (they'd be far more likely to just adopt and advance guns) but these little quibbles aside I enjoyed it. I even teared up when the villain died - that NEVER happens in super-hero movies simply because the villain never really has complexity or anything to sympathise with. Great turn from Andy Serkis too and all the leads did their job well. Overall, it held my interest and I enjoyed it, and I don't often say that about a Marvel movie.
A Wrinkle in Time
(2018)
Unimaginably bad
8 January 2019
I don't know the book at all, but even given that, I can't imagine this wooden, soulless mishmash of nothing does it any service. Two writers are credited on this - what did they do, spend all their time challenging each other on Candy Crush? And the acting... I don't know the lead actress playing the heroine, but she spends the whole movie with one expression - blank staring. The older actresses are all chronically overacting, probably in some attempt to give it life. Even when there is a group of them together it's as if they are delivering lines in an an animation voice studio and they are not actually present or relating to each other. At one point the young brother reappears after being separated and there is zero reaction. The whole film is like that. There are one or two good visual moments, like the sinister children bouncing balls and their Stepford mothers, but otherwise no. It doesn't even have any scientific element to give it some credence. A deeply dull, badly acted, dreadfully scripted big pretty bauble of nothing. What a waste of money.
The Cloverfield Paradox
(2018)
Dull, banal and pointless
22 November 2018
Why make this film if all you are going to do with it is cover the same old ground, with the same tired old dialogue, the same stereotypical arguments and meltdowns? With the exception of some little gems of interest like the unattached arm and the magnetic meltdown it's like they wrote it with a basic guide of 'How to do sci-fi'. Feels much longer than it is. A braindead waste of money and human resources.
Apostle
(2018)
Dire
9 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Overly long, feels like it runs for 4 hours, although it's only 2, and sadly lacking in a plot - or point. It looks great, grimy and 'authentic', but authentically what? It felt like it didn't know what period it was, or even what country it was in. Western frontier houses in what looked like Wales, with WW1 costumes with what looked like Regency guns. But worse than all of this was Dan Stevens lead character. I don't know what the had been told to emote, but all we got was 'addict-having breakdown' combined with what was supposed to be, I assume, 'distraught black sheep desperate to find girl'. Instead he just looked cross and pouty all the time, constantly gurning and giving sidelong glances. He was meant to be 'hidden' but spent so much time looking shifty and furtive he more or less had a sign above him. Then there was the 'earth spirit', for want of a better word for her. She was evil - or maybe not. She didn't want to eat, yet sucked down blood like she was starving. She was tied up but spent all the time somehow wandering about the woods, taking strolls or just popping up randomly. And the leaders were religious, or maybe not. Maybe communists, or radicals, or maybe just a branch of the Rotarians. Who knows - they certainly didn't.
Muddled, sullen, unentertaining and incoherent. Not surreal or weird, just incoherent. Dreadful.
Muddled, sullen, unentertaining and incoherent. Not surreal or weird, just incoherent. Dreadful.
Not Cinderella's Type
(2018)
Dire
22 October 2018
Atrociously acted, badly timed, overdone at every turn, obvious to the point of pain and made up entirely of a series of talking heads. If you sat down and read a bowdlerized version of the real Cinderella, intended for 4 year-olds, it would still have more life than this bilge. An insult to the name of fairy tales.
The Hitman's Bodyguard
(2017)
No Deadpool
11 July 2018
This looked really good from the trailer and it had an edge of sarcasm that made it reminiscent of Deadpool, so I expected that quality of writing. Nope. Not at all. While it does have good dialogue and Jackson and Reynolds are never less than watchable, this is really just a mainstream buddy-buddy chase movie with more swearing.
It feels forced throughout, trying too hard to be edgy and in-your-face, while it keeps one foot firmly in the '15-30 year old male who likes fast chase sequences' camp. Additionally, and probably for the same reason, it has an odd nasty sexist streak running through it, with Hayek demeaning her very notably fat cell mate while she always looks 'hot' as per same 15 year-old boy's idea of 'hot'. Reynolds' love interest has as much charisma, with or without him, as a face cloth and she is constantly handled by her male superior. That's maybe meant to be in there to flag up what a creep he is, but it's done in such a casual way, while bursting Hayek's breasts out on every occasion, that it just looks like a normal chase movie/thriller.
All round a very disappointing movie. Watchable, but by no means a good use of the two stars.
It feels forced throughout, trying too hard to be edgy and in-your-face, while it keeps one foot firmly in the '15-30 year old male who likes fast chase sequences' camp. Additionally, and probably for the same reason, it has an odd nasty sexist streak running through it, with Hayek demeaning her very notably fat cell mate while she always looks 'hot' as per same 15 year-old boy's idea of 'hot'. Reynolds' love interest has as much charisma, with or without him, as a face cloth and she is constantly handled by her male superior. That's maybe meant to be in there to flag up what a creep he is, but it's done in such a casual way, while bursting Hayek's breasts out on every occasion, that it just looks like a normal chase movie/thriller.
All round a very disappointing movie. Watchable, but by no means a good use of the two stars.
Creepy
(2016)
Drivel well made
28 April 2018
Warning: Spoilers
A potentially great movie is spoiled by that old chestnut, completely implausible and ridiculous behaviour by the characters. The hero is told at one point , to his face, by the girl herself, that his weird neighbour is not the girl's father - our hero's expert opinion on this, as an outstanding criminal psychologist? "That was weird". I quote. His wife is continually harassed by the weird neighbour - does she tell her husband? Hell, no. That would be too intelligent. Towards the end we see that she has track marks right down her arm from being drugged - does the fabulous criminal psychologist notice? Nope. His senior officer in the police force finally begins to believe him that his weird neighbour is probably a serial killer, so said older, experienced officer goes into the potential serial killer's house, without a weapon, a partner or back-up of any kind, not forgetting, of course, to take his shoes off first. Wouldn't do to break with protocol. Although the wife has a mini-breakdown after seeing the corpse of the first 'wife' and screams wildly, she does nothing when her own husband is taken hostage. First wife's daughter - who is not drugged as far as we know - is handed a weapon and the villain conveniently bends down in front of her, giving her a close-up, clear shot - does she take it? Hell no again. Despite the fact that she is fully compos mentis and he's about four foot and a coward, PLUS, she's already snitched on him twice (for all the good that does her). When she does escape does she call the police? Nope. Of course not - that would get in the way of the 'plot'.
The whole thing is like this, full of holes big enough to drive a mack truck through, so that you are so annoyed by the characters' stupidity that you just spend all your time jeering at them and thinking they deserve to die. Which is a shame, because the settings are good, the story idea is interesting and involving and the characters are good, especially the villain who plays his part excellently. I just can't forgive the stupidity.
The whole thing is like this, full of holes big enough to drive a mack truck through, so that you are so annoyed by the characters' stupidity that you just spend all your time jeering at them and thinking they deserve to die. Which is a shame, because the settings are good, the story idea is interesting and involving and the characters are good, especially the villain who plays his part excellently. I just can't forgive the stupidity.
Five Across the Eyes
(2006)
Girls screaming on a video phone
2 July 2008
How, in the name of all that's holy, did this film ever get distribution? It looks as if it has been shot on someone's mobile phone and takes the screaming girl victim scenario to whole new depths. They literally scream for the full 90 minutes of the movie. And that's all they do. There is no plot, no tension, no characters, and not a lot of acting. Just screaming and more screaming.
I gave up after fifteen minutes and fast-wound through it to see if anything happened. It doesn't - except for screaming, of course. Odlly enough, the act of going through it on fast forward highlights another problem - there is no camera-work to speak of. Every shot looks like every other shot - middle distance, one angle, dull, dull, DULL.
It's not so bad it's good. It's just plain bad.
I gave up after fifteen minutes and fast-wound through it to see if anything happened. It doesn't - except for screaming, of course. Odlly enough, the act of going through it on fast forward highlights another problem - there is no camera-work to speak of. Every shot looks like every other shot - middle distance, one angle, dull, dull, DULL.
It's not so bad it's good. It's just plain bad.
The Second Coming
(2003)
Unbelievably awful
9 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
As I don't have a TV, and had never heard of this mini-series, I didn't know what to expect from The Second Coming and hired it purely on the strength of its plot synopsis, which sounded interesting.
Dear God! (Every pun intended.) If someone told me that this had been written by a class of thirteen year olds who had been given the project of turning the second coming into a school play I wouldn't have been surprised.
Why, oh why did they decide to portray Jesus mark II as what amounted to an idiot savant? Is there anything in any of the gospels to suggest this? Okay, an ordinary bloke, but a Great Northern Moron. I don't think so.
Apparently all Jesus did to impress people was his miracles, because according to this take his preaching sure as hell never impressed anyone. Certainly without the night into day stunt Mr Jesus Eccleston would have been floundering without a canoe, a paddle or any kind of following at all.
And the odd little gay polemics put in willy-nilly, without rhyme or reason. Other than, of course, Russell waving to his QAF fan base. Jesus turns up in the pub to recruit 'disciples' (more gormless Northern losers and, of course, the gay writer's standby - the harpy woman, nag, nag, nagging away). Gay rights are rammed down his throat to no real purpose, almost like Russell thought he 'owed it to the lads' to put Jesus on the spot.
I can't really see the real Jesus coming out with "Well, I've nothing against it personally, mate." Only someone truly middle class and woolly could imagine Jesus to be quite this wet.
And don't start me on the ending. 'Please come in and eat rat poison because the only way we can be truly free is if God dies'.
It was like an Eddie Izzard sketch of God as Bill Gates. "Hello, I'm Bill Gates, and now you've pointed out to me that my global domination is cramping your style I'm going to give it all to you, my customers." And eat the rat poison, of course.
I'm often mystified by the ratings on IMDb, but the high rating on this one takes the biscuit.
Never mind Jesus for the new millennium - this is Jesus for brainless MTV lads.
God help us all indeed.
Dear God! (Every pun intended.) If someone told me that this had been written by a class of thirteen year olds who had been given the project of turning the second coming into a school play I wouldn't have been surprised.
Why, oh why did they decide to portray Jesus mark II as what amounted to an idiot savant? Is there anything in any of the gospels to suggest this? Okay, an ordinary bloke, but a Great Northern Moron. I don't think so.
Apparently all Jesus did to impress people was his miracles, because according to this take his preaching sure as hell never impressed anyone. Certainly without the night into day stunt Mr Jesus Eccleston would have been floundering without a canoe, a paddle or any kind of following at all.
And the odd little gay polemics put in willy-nilly, without rhyme or reason. Other than, of course, Russell waving to his QAF fan base. Jesus turns up in the pub to recruit 'disciples' (more gormless Northern losers and, of course, the gay writer's standby - the harpy woman, nag, nag, nagging away). Gay rights are rammed down his throat to no real purpose, almost like Russell thought he 'owed it to the lads' to put Jesus on the spot.
I can't really see the real Jesus coming out with "Well, I've nothing against it personally, mate." Only someone truly middle class and woolly could imagine Jesus to be quite this wet.
And don't start me on the ending. 'Please come in and eat rat poison because the only way we can be truly free is if God dies'.
It was like an Eddie Izzard sketch of God as Bill Gates. "Hello, I'm Bill Gates, and now you've pointed out to me that my global domination is cramping your style I'm going to give it all to you, my customers." And eat the rat poison, of course.
I'm often mystified by the ratings on IMDb, but the high rating on this one takes the biscuit.
Never mind Jesus for the new millennium - this is Jesus for brainless MTV lads.
God help us all indeed.
Revelations
(1994–1996)
One of TV's Lost Gems
27 May 2007
Revelations was a fabulous 'soap' that deserves to be far better known, , covering material that maybe appears on other soap operas, but with a style and verve they usually completely lack.
Running the gamut of covert incest, homosexuality, sibling rivalry, infidelity, illegitimate children, drugs, revenge and murder it resembled nothing more than a Jacobean drama disguised as a late-night soap.
I've never seen a TV drama quite like it before or since.
It was also remarkably well cast with fabulous performances from all the leads, but particularly from Stephen Mapes as a wonderfully fragile, over-cosetted and very sexy Gabriel. I've never understood why he hasn't achieved more fame as an actor.
I enjoy very little TV - it's not my entertainment of choice - but this was a stand-out for me (along with Dangerous Lady - another underrated masterpiece).
If you like dark stories with sub-rosa story lines about repressed and hidden feelings you'll love this.
Someone needs to issue this on DVD and get it the recognition it deserves. A true cult classic in waiting.
Running the gamut of covert incest, homosexuality, sibling rivalry, infidelity, illegitimate children, drugs, revenge and murder it resembled nothing more than a Jacobean drama disguised as a late-night soap.
I've never seen a TV drama quite like it before or since.
It was also remarkably well cast with fabulous performances from all the leads, but particularly from Stephen Mapes as a wonderfully fragile, over-cosetted and very sexy Gabriel. I've never understood why he hasn't achieved more fame as an actor.
I enjoy very little TV - it's not my entertainment of choice - but this was a stand-out for me (along with Dangerous Lady - another underrated masterpiece).
If you like dark stories with sub-rosa story lines about repressed and hidden feelings you'll love this.
Someone needs to issue this on DVD and get it the recognition it deserves. A true cult classic in waiting.
Brotherhood of the Wolf
(2001)
just plain bad
25 November 2002
Badly overdubbed (very), overlong fight sequences, too many fight sequences, a horribly Disneyesque monster, a very irritating heroine (only the villains are remotely interesting), a frighteningly cliched red Indian and plot holes you could drive a truck through. Its success makes me sad.
Dracula 2000
(2000)
unbelievably dire
14 September 2002
If you want a Dracula with no menace and the screen charisma of a gnat plus to see a lot more jumping and leaping and hanging from wires a la Matrix (again) then you've come to the right place. It frightens me to think that in such an overcrowded industry that somebody got the money to make this film - even worse that somebody actually wrote it this bad and still got someone to give them the money. Oh, and you better like Virgin because they're in it more often than the vampires. Avoid.
Ravenous
(1999)
Not only underrated, completely misunderstood
30 March 2001
I don't know whether the previous comments on this film show how badly the film was marketed (I never saw any advertising for it) or whether they're a terrible condemnation of just how tunnel-visioned people can be. This is only a horror film in the sense that Macbeth is or The Godfather. It's about the horror of monstrosity, particularly the monstrosity inside ourselves. It's not about cannibalism, nor is it a black comedy. It has those things in it, but they are not it's raison d'etre. It's about the horror of war, conquest, taking things which don't belong to you with the sole justification that that's how you get ahead in life. You have what the other man has literally by consuming it. The hero of this film is branded a coward when really all he's done is preserved himself from the madness going on around him, a fight in which he has no part, just like this one. And yet, I see reviewers here referring to his 'cowardice' as a given. They haven't even got to first base about questioning whether he might not actually be a coward in the first place. It looks like everybody's checked their brains in at the door with this one. I'm glad I never directed this movie, it would be soul-destroying to be this misunderstood. It's a great movie. Savage, brutal,poetic. You watch the whole thing with your mouth hanging open in sheer disbelief. It's a feast for the eyes and ears and has one of the most fey, eerie qualities I've ever seen in a film. It's a masterpiece and I would urge anyone out there who can leave their preconceptions and genre expectations at home to see it. Give yourself a treat - be amazed.
Krull
(1983)
1912 movie time
25 February 2001
This is an incredibly dated film. Stick Errol Flynn in this movie and you're off. Some great imagination in it, and a great spider but PLEASE this film has the worst role ever given to a woman. Considering it was made in '83 it's a thousand times more unforgivable. And as for the end it looks like all over the galaxy kings and queens still always have sons who will rule the Universe. Worse than sad.
Breeders
(1997)
Unbelievably bad
12 February 2001
Dire beyond belief. Obviously set on the Isle of Man masquerading as the US - very badly - and full of cut-rate British actors who can't do American accents. A monster that looks like an unarticulated promotional cut-out for Alien from a movie store, with the most inflexible feet ever seen. Girls in the shower, undressing, catfighting, blah, blah, blah. You get the idea. Don't watch it, run away, hide, AVOID.
Godzilla
(I) (1998)
Soulless and worse
11 February 2001
Warning: Spoilers
I just watched this film for the first time and disliked it so much I had to review it to get it off my chest. It is the most morally bankrupt film I've seen in a long time. The only likeable character in the film is Godzilla himself. What's worse is you are obviously supposed to feel sympathy for him, but later in the film !!!!! POSSIBLE SPOILER !!!!!, when his young appear, they are shown as relentless Alien type predators. Then Godzilla reappears and is sympathetic again. His death is played about as tragic as it gets while not one of the humans (perhaps with the exception of Jean Reno's character and the young soldier O'Neil) is remotely sympathetic or has any redeeming features whatsoever - so quite what are we supposed to think? And this is no Starship Troopers either where you are supposed to think twice about the gung-ho aspects - this is just BAD. I spent the whole film rooting for Godzilla to bite everyone's heads off and raze New York to the ground. The film-makers obviously had no idea what they were trying to say other than let's make money. Do not give them another penny in rental or purchase. I've watched war films that were less harrowing. I'm only glad I didn't see it as a kid or it would have upset me for months.
Raising Cain
(1992)
not as bad as it could be!
30 January 2001
Yes, it's bad for the man who made Carrie, but it's not as bad as it might be. A lot of it is tongue-in-cheek (witness the long tracking shot of the pet psychologist explaining split personalities) and it has some terrific bizarre moments, not least the scariest drowning-in-a-car scene in film history. It's a very weird movie and John Lithgow gives a great camp performance in it. I don't know if Brian set out to make a schlocky trash movie but that's what he did, and as such, it's fun. Watch it and see.
Blue Steel
(1990)
an underrated gem
30 January 2001
Blue Steel is not only a terrific movie but one of those cinematic rarities - cinema from a female viewpoint. By that I don't mean it's about babies and relationships, a common misconception of 'female viewpoint', but rather it's the experience of a male world from outside. In this film the men are the sex objects, and the aggression is female aggression. In fact one of the things this film studies is the different reactions the heroine experiences with regard to her actions just because she is female, cop or no, and is expected to act in specific ways. I think one of the reasons it is consistently overlooked is that male reviewers just don't get it and those who do don't like it. They don't like the way everything is turned upside down. Curtis isn't nurturing, she's not a victim, she doesn't fear her abusive father, she's attracted to a violent man but is equally callous about him when she realises what he is, she doesn't break down and try to change him, reform him, or marry him. Nor does she go in fear of him. Be brave gents and let the film talk to you without your cherished ideals of womanhood.
Tell Your Friends