Reviews

7 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
Oh Dear!
11 October 2022
So, I watched the first two episodes and tried to watch the third.... I couldn't. I wanted to like this, really I did, but I just can't go on... The show has amazing visual beauty. The set designs, CGI and wardrobes are all very impressive. The show has a high budget movie look and feel. They did really well in creating something that looks good enough to be a prequel to Peter Jackson's films.

Unfortunately they forgot what makes tolkiens world so good... a story with characters you care about. I could've even forgiven the goofy irish Harfoots if there was a strong storyline. I don't care about any of these characters at all. By the time I stopped watching I was hoping Sauron would sweep in and put the whole mess to the sword... perhaps that will be the season finale?
46 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Snowman (2017)
3/10
Cotton balls in Val Kilmers Cheeks?
13 December 2017
A movie with plenty of potential to be great, but not enough character development and a story line which slowly rolls downhill and fizzles out at the end. These issues have been adequately dealt with in other reviews, but I'd just like to point out that Val Kilmer should've been banned from making films a long time ago and this movie shows a good example of why. His voice had to be overdubbed (badly) throughout which indicates that he decided to make his character even sillier than it ended up being with some terrible add-libbing or a daft voice. The Brando-esque cotton balls in his cheeks make him look truly bizarre and his acting is simply awful. If his scenes were just cropped together a comedy short, of some quality, could be cobbled together with ease... Seriously, which casting director actually wants this guy any more??? He is truly mind bogglingly awful in this, so awful in fact that I gave 2 stars for the great location shots and 2 for Kilmers comedy gold.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
King Charles III (2017 TV Movie)
1/10
Pretentious Yawnfest that will only impress complete nincompoops
6 June 2017
Totally wrong-footed republican attack. If you are going to portray the monarchy in such a light, there are better ways to undermine it...Like factually.

The name is enough for anyone with a clue not to bother.

Charles was on the record as saying he will take the name George VII should his mother not outlive him. Yes, that's right, it's not an automatic naming system... Which is probably good as the king who fought Hitler would've been King Bertie the 1st. That he took the name Charles was only decided in the last year of HM Queen Elizabeth's reign,

If they can't be bothered to even get the basics correct, why should we bother to watch? Absolutely pointless drivel.

If you believe in alternative facts, which over 40% of Americans apparently do now, you may find this riveting. Only issue is that people who watch fox news are going to have trouble following the pseudo Shakespearean language. I'm guessing it's not going to be a box office spectacular.

Why did scores of people think this was a useful way to spend their time? Seriously, I'd appreciate some insight on why people bother creating such trash. You couldn't boast/use it on a CV/show it to friends or family. Why bother?
15 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Taboo (2017)
6/10
Howlingly silly, but strangely watchable!
4 March 2017
Don't expect historical facts,at all. Set during the Revolutionary war we are expected to believe the royal navy is being blockaded by Americans with Irish support in the Irish sea, that during the rape of china with opium and a roaring tea trade the head of the east India company (wrong man of course but Mr.Strange sounds SO cool)spends his spare time slave trading.....as an individual. And this is especially lucrative as he scuttles the ship wasting the slave cargo he was willing to risk all for?????

Also, we live in an era in London where lords,ladies and commoners freely mix and the latter rule London...lol. Every tough guy has more tattoos than David Beckham and street urchins wear Gothic eye makeup. the whores and ladies are dressed as Victorians, ball shot is used but blades aren't...so reload racing is how people fight,a bayonet would be far too easy. Except for our hero....he tears out throats with his teeth because he went to Africa....or was it Canada? I guess who cares, right? The main point is he found voodoo in Africanada and eats hearts. he can hear the dead, which is handy if bubbling water and whispering goths are your thing. Our hero comes from money...but talks and dresses like an industrial revolution coal miner from the north...when hes not speaking Canadiafrican voodoo,he might invest in rail t' mine next season!. His father was super wealthy and so is he, although he spent his youth as a cabin boy on slave ships....I'm so lost historically...but if you just forget ALL history and which period you're in and the entire class structure of Britain, its cool. Oh and in the 1700's you could csi your dads corpse...cool huh? and transsexuals, queers and Maoris they call Indians were widely accepted in dockside brothels, by the ever present... hooker with a heart o gold. There is a Victorian chemist and cocaine is widely used by him and his friends from the band 'Flock of Seagulls' although it wasn't invented 'til well after the war that is happening. Perhaps he brought it back in the time machine he uses to bring Victorian chemistry. If you actually sat down and carefully looked over the whole thing it has pretty much no basis in fact...perhaps season 2 will let us in on their whole lack of a time-line...perhaps its Supposed to be Sci Fi. Fun though. 7/10 for shear front. And for being watchable even though its clearly absurd.
28 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Inferno (I) (2016)
2/10
Tom Hanks's Wig looks as realistic as this films story line.
29 November 2016
Warning: Spoilers
That hairline looks like it was done by Donald Trumps hairdresser. It was quite hard to watch the movie without laughing at the glue-line around Toms scalp, but his silly wig could've been the best part of this movie. Dan Brown has struggled to write anything since The Da Vinci Code that isn't a poor copy of it's formula, and this story is no exception (which adds fuel to the idea that he stole that story). There's very little excitement drawn out off the clues, as rather than being based on historical fact, they are left by a supposedly deranged Billionaire for no point at all. Why didn't he just leave his GF a thumbprint device with the virus inside? It's all very silly. Why Langdon is even drawn into the story is as inexplicable. We are supposed to believe that the clues the cartoon baddie left his genius partner were too hard for her to figure out so a private NSA is hired to make Langdon believe he was shot and he should go on the run with his Doctor and help her find the answers?....The more I think about the story line, the more I can't believe I sat through it. It really is breathtakingly childish. The changed ending makes no difference, as if you actually care what's going on by the end of this film you are in need of reading a good book to understand what interesting actually is. Ron Howard is capable of making reasonable movies. Why is he still trying to turn Dan Browns writing into film? Surely he has enough money... And this certainly wasn't made for the art. You may think..okay, it'll be watchable...I'll try it. It really isn't worth your time. Better off doing housework.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ben-Hur (2016)
1/10
Do yourself a favour, don't bother with this.
27 November 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Contrived, predictable & with the most wooden of acting from a horrific cast. Poor old Morgan Freeman can't even save this in his role as a Rastafarian Chariot Gambler.

I won't go too far into the detail of the movie (for those of you that want to make your own minds up) other than to say there is nothing unpredictable or exciting in this movie. From the opening scene where apparently a horse tripping on a rock sounds like an artillery cannon firing, to the constant running into Jesus (for snippets of morality which are almost comedic) and on into the core story line of why a brother would turn on another without even discussing the hows and whys involved before killing off his family... This movie, with it's large budget, fails terribly. It's just awful. I left the theater before it finished. It was just so terrible. Perhaps it will make a return in 20 years as one to watch for giggles.
15 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Diablo (2015)
2/10
He should've asked his father for help. Awful.
8 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Terrible movie. In time perhaps it'll be a fun one to watch for laughs...Like a Steven Segal pot boiler.

Plot holes galore. This story wanders all over the place with a twist in the middle that just adds to it's overall stupidity.

The Locations are all Ice, snow, mountains and a few rolling hills...Yet we have a Northern Indian tribe (of 3 men and a kiddie)feeding him peyote (desert cactus) whilst simultaneously curing his bullet wound and driving him out of their village for unexplained reasons.

From the beginning it makes no sense with a neighbour arriving on the scene to give him details of what happened ("they have your wife") after asking "what happened?" and arriving after the "baddies" had left. It's obvious his wife's "kidnapping" is voluntary from the start.

So many goofs. Just watching the far off scenes of "Diablo" on his horse looks like a kid on a pony...then we zoom into Mr Eastwood leading his big black horse. I don't think he can actually ride. His hair remains perfectly gelled and combed throughout the awful mish-mash of plot holes and bad editing.

Poor Walton Goggins and Danny Glover get drawn into this comedy of goofs...and I can't see why. Money must be the only reason as the storyline and all other actors were just so terrible.

Finally, if you're gonna place a story in the Mexican Borderline...Lets not use the mountains of Alberta, Canada for the shooting location. It's just not even close to looking like Northern Cali even. Also, how about having some Spanish looking actors play the Mexicans and dress them accordingly.

There is an attempt to show some Mexicans as they arrive for the "grand Finale" as it comes in a Big Canadian house with rolling fields and a backdrop of mountains with a young European playing Pinata.

Watch this shockingly bad dross at your peril.
39 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed