Do you find yourself using a lot of unnecessary expletives or prone to over the top reactions when cronfronted with a different take on reality from the one in your head? Then you may be suffering from cognitive dissonance: A psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously?
Well, Larry Elder made this documentary just for you! And he even called it "Uncle Tom" to save you the trouble. A must watch to see for this who want to find out if the world is everything we were told it is. A++++++++++++
Reviews
19 Reviews
Acts of Violence
(2018)
Just couldn't finish it
13 January 2018
Annoying cheesy two dimensional characters. Very, and I mean very predictable story line. Politically correct agenda. What's not to love? This one I couldn't even finish. What the hell is Bruce Willis' agent taking these days? Willis has gone from Big screen draw to straight to TV (if he's lucky). There is absolutely nothing to see here folks so best just to move along please.
Merchants of Doubt
(2014)
Bad people do bad things.... and what does that prove?
29 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This documentary starts with these merchants of doubt and their work with tobacco industries. The case builds against disinformation regarding the detrimental effects of cigarettes on health. It then moves to chemicals in fire retardants. However, the viewer is being lead all the while to the case for man-made climate change. It is put alongside the other scientific cases and effectively gives the viewer the impression that it has the same scientific validity.
Making a case that there are paid lackeys of vested interests who made erroneous statements previously on one subject does not make a case one way or the other on the validity of an other subject. It just demonstrates that there are vested interests using a tried and tested strategy for the continuation of their business at all costs. The fact that these companies are abusing our planet for the own financial gain is a fact. Should we stop them? Of course yes! Should we look after the environment? Of course we should! Does that mean everything said about man made climate change is true? I just don't know.
If man made climate change is a fact. I would consider myself a skeptic for no other reason that if giant super computers cannot predict the weather for more than 3 days with any degree of accuracy and then I am told that climate can be predicted 10, 20, 100 years in the future? Excuse me if I ask what is the basis for making such bold predictions? The climate can change and this is a fact otherwise we would still be in an ice age. The causes and the end results of this is where I would struggle because I have no faith in the research or the proponents of this case. The research is just not sufficient nor is it likely to be in the near future. Those making it are very big on zeal but not so hot on evidence.
Call me naive but I thought the way to silence skeptics is to prove your hypothesis beyond doubt. Not to complain that there are those who disagree. This is a distraction and nothing to do with whether the case being made is valid. One of the main problems I have with Climate Change (and the trend in most recent headline research) is it is impossible to prove or disprove. It is more akin to religious faith than provable science because it is too far away, or too long ago, or not yet happened. You just have to believe it because who can show it to you. It is the evidence for things not yet seen, nor likely to be.
This documentary is a propaganda tool for climate change. I say this because having considered all the above. The amount of actual evidence presented proving man-made climate change is virtually non existent. It is mostly emotive dialogue and anecdotal presentation. They spend most of the film discrediting their opponents. Isn't that the point made at the start about what the tobacco industry did? They boohoo about getting nasty emails from nasty people. They repeat the mantra that climate change is true because they have been to Antarctica and because they say it is.
What has all this to do with valid science? The fact people can say I do not believe in ... whatever the theory is means you just have not proved it. Good science is about proving your hypothesis beyond doubt. If it is too nuanced for a clear demonstration then that is sufficient cause for the possibility that you may be mistaken. If the theory is too complicated to outline simply then that means you do not fully understand what you are trying to explain. Stop saying it's proved it when you cannot produce incontrovertible proof. Of course the proof cannot be produced because this proof exists in the future and unless someone can build a time machine it can never be proved, it so it will always remain a hypothesis at best. Hence the need for propaganda like this.
Making a case that there are paid lackeys of vested interests who made erroneous statements previously on one subject does not make a case one way or the other on the validity of an other subject. It just demonstrates that there are vested interests using a tried and tested strategy for the continuation of their business at all costs. The fact that these companies are abusing our planet for the own financial gain is a fact. Should we stop them? Of course yes! Should we look after the environment? Of course we should! Does that mean everything said about man made climate change is true? I just don't know.
If man made climate change is a fact. I would consider myself a skeptic for no other reason that if giant super computers cannot predict the weather for more than 3 days with any degree of accuracy and then I am told that climate can be predicted 10, 20, 100 years in the future? Excuse me if I ask what is the basis for making such bold predictions? The climate can change and this is a fact otherwise we would still be in an ice age. The causes and the end results of this is where I would struggle because I have no faith in the research or the proponents of this case. The research is just not sufficient nor is it likely to be in the near future. Those making it are very big on zeal but not so hot on evidence.
Call me naive but I thought the way to silence skeptics is to prove your hypothesis beyond doubt. Not to complain that there are those who disagree. This is a distraction and nothing to do with whether the case being made is valid. One of the main problems I have with Climate Change (and the trend in most recent headline research) is it is impossible to prove or disprove. It is more akin to religious faith than provable science because it is too far away, or too long ago, or not yet happened. You just have to believe it because who can show it to you. It is the evidence for things not yet seen, nor likely to be.
This documentary is a propaganda tool for climate change. I say this because having considered all the above. The amount of actual evidence presented proving man-made climate change is virtually non existent. It is mostly emotive dialogue and anecdotal presentation. They spend most of the film discrediting their opponents. Isn't that the point made at the start about what the tobacco industry did? They boohoo about getting nasty emails from nasty people. They repeat the mantra that climate change is true because they have been to Antarctica and because they say it is.
What has all this to do with valid science? The fact people can say I do not believe in ... whatever the theory is means you just have not proved it. Good science is about proving your hypothesis beyond doubt. If it is too nuanced for a clear demonstration then that is sufficient cause for the possibility that you may be mistaken. If the theory is too complicated to outline simply then that means you do not fully understand what you are trying to explain. Stop saying it's proved it when you cannot produce incontrovertible proof. Of course the proof cannot be produced because this proof exists in the future and unless someone can build a time machine it can never be proved, it so it will always remain a hypothesis at best. Hence the need for propaganda like this.
The Shawshank Redemption
(1994)
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.
20 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
If this was the Wizrd of Oz or Bambi then I could understand the appeal of the movie and would rate it accordingly but what this movie is I just do not know and no one can seem to tell me when I ask so why it is considered such a great movie other than: "Aww it was nice". Well so are kitten videos on Youtube but should they be in the top spot of greatest movies ever made?
Firstly its subject matter is crime and punishment. This is not a genre exempt from theatrical treatment, in musicals and such, but at least you know you are watching a fictitious romantic fantasy when the prisoners break out in song. There is no such device in Shawshank and here lies my problem with this movie.
It simply does not in any way indicate that this is fantasy which it quite clearly is. It takes itself seriously and if you examine it seriously then it has serious flaws of deliberate making. If these were accidental then I could possibly forgive them but the fact is the audience is being manipulated like an episode of Little House on the Prairie. For those of you who do not remember it was one of the many tear-jerking TV shows in the 70s with Michael Landon (Lord have mercy on him). It is not that I am against tear-jerkers as such. I cried at the end of The Champ, like most. I can take my portion of treacle in measured doses. It is not that Shawshank is just sentimental. It is the fact that it masquerades as something else.
To be fair this is not the fault of the actors. It is technically a very well made movie. The performances are very strong so I can understand its appeal on this level. However, even these positives do not mitigate the sins of the writer. I am a fan of Stephen King and I do enjoy his stories but this is definitely not one of them. Maybe it is because it is not all his doing. I never read the novella so I am not sure how much is his and how much came from the director/writer.
There were many little stabs of: "Is this for real?" moments in this movie but the scene that really ended my engagement was the scene where Morgan Freedman is telling the other prisoners about institutionalization. This is done to the backdrop of a paroled prisoner hanging himself. The idea of Institutionalisation as a bad thing became popular in the 1990s when this movie was made and and it was simply inserted, like so many ideas lying about without any research or care for its accuracy. The fact we have an uneducated prisoner espousing a theory that had not even been researched just threw back the curtain on the manipulator of Oz and lost me forever. The fact that suicide was used as a sentimental tool to engage the viewer in such a sham and poorly considered way is simply unforgivable in my estimation.
Good fiction is meant to engage and to some extent manipulate the audience but it should be believable and due care and consideration should be taken in the treatment and presentation of the story. When you feel the hand of the manipulator, or see the strings holding up the illusion then the spell is broken and the magic is gone. A great movie should have great acting, great production, great direction and writing. This one definitely does not have great writing. This movie is not what it aspires to be. I am not even sure that it knows what it is aspiring to be. It is not serious, not realistic but at the same time does not portray itself as fantasy. So what is it supposed to be and why do people rate it so highly? I have nothing against it but to think it is considered so great when it clearly is not is an insult to all the great writers. As a schmaltzy Sunday afternoon feel-good watch it could be considered good but Great? Come on! This Movie is a non event, at best. It is is a study in form with no substance. A pretty picture of a sentimental scene that never occurred and never will. A fantasy pretending it is something else. What, I just do not know. Can anyone tell me?
Firstly its subject matter is crime and punishment. This is not a genre exempt from theatrical treatment, in musicals and such, but at least you know you are watching a fictitious romantic fantasy when the prisoners break out in song. There is no such device in Shawshank and here lies my problem with this movie.
It simply does not in any way indicate that this is fantasy which it quite clearly is. It takes itself seriously and if you examine it seriously then it has serious flaws of deliberate making. If these were accidental then I could possibly forgive them but the fact is the audience is being manipulated like an episode of Little House on the Prairie. For those of you who do not remember it was one of the many tear-jerking TV shows in the 70s with Michael Landon (Lord have mercy on him). It is not that I am against tear-jerkers as such. I cried at the end of The Champ, like most. I can take my portion of treacle in measured doses. It is not that Shawshank is just sentimental. It is the fact that it masquerades as something else.
To be fair this is not the fault of the actors. It is technically a very well made movie. The performances are very strong so I can understand its appeal on this level. However, even these positives do not mitigate the sins of the writer. I am a fan of Stephen King and I do enjoy his stories but this is definitely not one of them. Maybe it is because it is not all his doing. I never read the novella so I am not sure how much is his and how much came from the director/writer.
There were many little stabs of: "Is this for real?" moments in this movie but the scene that really ended my engagement was the scene where Morgan Freedman is telling the other prisoners about institutionalization. This is done to the backdrop of a paroled prisoner hanging himself. The idea of Institutionalisation as a bad thing became popular in the 1990s when this movie was made and and it was simply inserted, like so many ideas lying about without any research or care for its accuracy. The fact we have an uneducated prisoner espousing a theory that had not even been researched just threw back the curtain on the manipulator of Oz and lost me forever. The fact that suicide was used as a sentimental tool to engage the viewer in such a sham and poorly considered way is simply unforgivable in my estimation.
Good fiction is meant to engage and to some extent manipulate the audience but it should be believable and due care and consideration should be taken in the treatment and presentation of the story. When you feel the hand of the manipulator, or see the strings holding up the illusion then the spell is broken and the magic is gone. A great movie should have great acting, great production, great direction and writing. This one definitely does not have great writing. This movie is not what it aspires to be. I am not even sure that it knows what it is aspiring to be. It is not serious, not realistic but at the same time does not portray itself as fantasy. So what is it supposed to be and why do people rate it so highly? I have nothing against it but to think it is considered so great when it clearly is not is an insult to all the great writers. As a schmaltzy Sunday afternoon feel-good watch it could be considered good but Great? Come on! This Movie is a non event, at best. It is is a study in form with no substance. A pretty picture of a sentimental scene that never occurred and never will. A fantasy pretending it is something else. What, I just do not know. Can anyone tell me?
Hunt for the Wilderpeople
(2016)
This is a funny movie
6 July 2017
I had my wife and kids in the room just after watching some program I cannot remember when I just stuck this on blind. I did not know what to expect other than it was family oriented. Normally my kids vote with heir feet after 10 mins but with this one they started to laugh. I put it on because Sam Neil was in it and he did not disappoint.
the movie is funny, sad, moving, exciting, and silly in equal measure. It is a rare event when a movie creates something really special and this one achieves it. I do not want to over egg it but if it holds the attention of my teenage daughters and they say it was good then something special has just happened. One even later told her friends it was her favorite movie.
A warning for those with younger viewers as there are some verbal references of a sexual nature and one scene of violence towards an wild animal. If you're comfortable with that then watch and enjoy.
the movie is funny, sad, moving, exciting, and silly in equal measure. It is a rare event when a movie creates something really special and this one achieves it. I do not want to over egg it but if it holds the attention of my teenage daughters and they say it was good then something special has just happened. One even later told her friends it was her favorite movie.
A warning for those with younger viewers as there are some verbal references of a sexual nature and one scene of violence towards an wild animal. If you're comfortable with that then watch and enjoy.
The Red Pill
(2016)
Don't believe the hype
4 June 2017
Men or women. Black or white. West or East. We all have a view and we seldom question where that viewpoint comes from or how we developed it. This documentary highlights a pervasive trend in our society that presents a one sided narrative spun by vested interest groups that impoverishes us all and how we can be deceived into believing something that is partially, or simply, not true.
It also highlights people's intransigence to change their viewpoint. It is so ironic to be faced by such naked anger and denial by those who claim to speak for justice and truth.
I found this documentary both affirming and challenging. I would strongly recommend everyone to sit down and watch it. It is not the whole picture on the issue of gender equality but rather the start of a dialogue. I liked what the guy had to say at the end about common sense. In a perfect world men and women would be treated fairly and equally but because it is not, feminism gave rise to the MRA.
This documentary shows the birth of a well meaning group that has a legitimate case to make. The problem I have is that all these groups eventually become as bad as each other. First they start with noble aspirations then they become popular and gain funding, which leads to vested interests shutting down all opposition in a struggle for power and influence. A journey which develops strategies for lobbying and campaigning exclusively for their own particular rights, often at the expense of the rights of many others.
As a society we all need to grow up and take our responsibilities more seriously than we esteem our rights. We need to listen more than we espouse. We need to learn to understand more about who we truly are than protest about how we think we all should be.
However, people are too often the same old creatures and there is nothing new under the sun. Fairness is still an aspiration for too many. Justice is too often the possession of the powerful and the majority would still prefer to live with a comfortable lie than struggle with a challenging truth.
I was impressed by this young film maker's effort to understand. She struggled with the narrative she had believed but did not shy away from suspending disbelief. She let the facts speak for themselves. An admiral and sadly rare quality in this media-headline crazed world. A recommended watch for all those who wish to be challenged.
It also highlights people's intransigence to change their viewpoint. It is so ironic to be faced by such naked anger and denial by those who claim to speak for justice and truth.
I found this documentary both affirming and challenging. I would strongly recommend everyone to sit down and watch it. It is not the whole picture on the issue of gender equality but rather the start of a dialogue. I liked what the guy had to say at the end about common sense. In a perfect world men and women would be treated fairly and equally but because it is not, feminism gave rise to the MRA.
This documentary shows the birth of a well meaning group that has a legitimate case to make. The problem I have is that all these groups eventually become as bad as each other. First they start with noble aspirations then they become popular and gain funding, which leads to vested interests shutting down all opposition in a struggle for power and influence. A journey which develops strategies for lobbying and campaigning exclusively for their own particular rights, often at the expense of the rights of many others.
As a society we all need to grow up and take our responsibilities more seriously than we esteem our rights. We need to listen more than we espouse. We need to learn to understand more about who we truly are than protest about how we think we all should be.
However, people are too often the same old creatures and there is nothing new under the sun. Fairness is still an aspiration for too many. Justice is too often the possession of the powerful and the majority would still prefer to live with a comfortable lie than struggle with a challenging truth.
I was impressed by this young film maker's effort to understand. She struggled with the narrative she had believed but did not shy away from suspending disbelief. She let the facts speak for themselves. An admiral and sadly rare quality in this media-headline crazed world. A recommended watch for all those who wish to be challenged.
Holy Hell
(2016)
Somewhat self indulgent... but at times compelling.
13 May 2017
I have amended my review since first watching. I have increased my rating from two stars because I have discovered that this story is true and it has stayed with me and for those reasons I consider it worth a five.
We all make mistakes because that is what being human is all about Some are more embarrassing than others but we must take responsibility for our own actions as adults. I mean if you are going to follow an odd looking guy who's standard dress is Speedo swimwear; who used to be a ballet dancer but now claims he's God and then, 22 years later, suddenly discover that he was weird. Like: "Who could have known?" Can you be surprised if others ask if you're kidding? This sense of incredulity compelled me to find out more. Having done some research I do now believe it is, sadly, genuine.
As a documentary it is supposed to make one feel uncomfortable but this did not feel like a documentary. It was more like a mockumentary. I was not always convinced. At times it just felt like I was watching actors berate their fellows. It had a voyeuristic feel to it and that is the nature of all good cinema, hence part of my struggle to connect to the story as anything but a piece of fiction. It also relied too much on hearsay. It was borderline gossip, hence its compelling appeal.
As a piece of entertainment it is definitely watchable. It does get a little prerdictable at times. However, the story carries one along, more or less. The cult leader is, in short, a diva and as such has a certain fascination. The cult could be likened to his fantasy production company and the members his supporting cast. To me the whole ensemble is just a little too dramatic for my tastes but I do not live in Hollywoodland and so to each their own and probably why I find it difficult to relate.
The reveal towards the end is not unexpected and no where near as shocking as I believe the makers probably expected it to be. As for the claim that all the negative reviews are coming from cult members the contrary could equally be true. So all the positives could be coming from friends and family of the makers. There is no easy way to know. So this kind of claim is less than helpful to the casual reader. People come here to see if it's worth their time to watch it. So just review the work as you see it, avoid the speculative supposition and let others decide for themselves whether the reviews are genuine or not. For me it was a little bizarre and felt a little like an episode of Fantasy Island gone wrong.
We all make mistakes because that is what being human is all about Some are more embarrassing than others but we must take responsibility for our own actions as adults. I mean if you are going to follow an odd looking guy who's standard dress is Speedo swimwear; who used to be a ballet dancer but now claims he's God and then, 22 years later, suddenly discover that he was weird. Like: "Who could have known?" Can you be surprised if others ask if you're kidding? This sense of incredulity compelled me to find out more. Having done some research I do now believe it is, sadly, genuine.
As a documentary it is supposed to make one feel uncomfortable but this did not feel like a documentary. It was more like a mockumentary. I was not always convinced. At times it just felt like I was watching actors berate their fellows. It had a voyeuristic feel to it and that is the nature of all good cinema, hence part of my struggle to connect to the story as anything but a piece of fiction. It also relied too much on hearsay. It was borderline gossip, hence its compelling appeal.
As a piece of entertainment it is definitely watchable. It does get a little prerdictable at times. However, the story carries one along, more or less. The cult leader is, in short, a diva and as such has a certain fascination. The cult could be likened to his fantasy production company and the members his supporting cast. To me the whole ensemble is just a little too dramatic for my tastes but I do not live in Hollywoodland and so to each their own and probably why I find it difficult to relate.
The reveal towards the end is not unexpected and no where near as shocking as I believe the makers probably expected it to be. As for the claim that all the negative reviews are coming from cult members the contrary could equally be true. So all the positives could be coming from friends and family of the makers. There is no easy way to know. So this kind of claim is less than helpful to the casual reader. People come here to see if it's worth their time to watch it. So just review the work as you see it, avoid the speculative supposition and let others decide for themselves whether the reviews are genuine or not. For me it was a little bizarre and felt a little like an episode of Fantasy Island gone wrong.
Angels and Demons Are Real
(2017 Video)
You'll find these all over you tube
11 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I didn't expect much and I was disappointed. This smacks of some student in their bedroom making a case with Movie Maker. Not a very astute student based on the level of research.
The opening sequence looks like it was tacked on, and has no continuity with the following scenes. The information presented is inaccurate. For example the voice states that Angels only got wings in post Constantine Christianity Obviously never bothered to read Isaiah.
If this is a first try then my mark would be: Needs to try harder. If this isn't then you need to talk to your career counselor.
Very poor is too high an mark for this effort.
The opening sequence looks like it was tacked on, and has no continuity with the following scenes. The information presented is inaccurate. For example the voice states that Angels only got wings in post Constantine Christianity Obviously never bothered to read Isaiah.
If this is a first try then my mark would be: Needs to try harder. If this isn't then you need to talk to your career counselor.
Very poor is too high an mark for this effort.
The Leftovers
(2014–2017)
Calm down it's just a TV show
24 April 2017
I am amused to see the reaction for and against this show. The evangelic believers who see it as the fifth gospel against the atheists who see only confusion and doubt.
Well I sat down with my wife to watch it because we were intrigued by the story line and had nothing better to do.
Conclusion It's watchable. It held our attention and we are currently on season three. So as far as TV shows go it's well made with enough story and character depth to hold our attention.
There are no stereotypical annoying characters so from this front it is refreshing. They are all competent but no really great ones that stand out. Christopher Eccleston does what he always does and probably stands out for me. Justin Theroux merits a mention also.
The story line you can get from the title. At times it slips into tedium but never long enough to loose you completely.
Some clever elements like the guilty remnant who all go around dressed in white, smoking cigarettes. For anyone that has had any dealings with psychiatric services might find vaguely familiar.
There are some plot holes that probably come from deadline pressures put on the poor over worked writers.
This is primarily a study of the human condition and as such does not always have to make sense because that's the way it is. No need to get upset or see more than there it is.
It's a steady seven.
Well I sat down with my wife to watch it because we were intrigued by the story line and had nothing better to do.
Conclusion It's watchable. It held our attention and we are currently on season three. So as far as TV shows go it's well made with enough story and character depth to hold our attention.
There are no stereotypical annoying characters so from this front it is refreshing. They are all competent but no really great ones that stand out. Christopher Eccleston does what he always does and probably stands out for me. Justin Theroux merits a mention also.
The story line you can get from the title. At times it slips into tedium but never long enough to loose you completely.
Some clever elements like the guilty remnant who all go around dressed in white, smoking cigarettes. For anyone that has had any dealings with psychiatric services might find vaguely familiar.
There are some plot holes that probably come from deadline pressures put on the poor over worked writers.
This is primarily a study of the human condition and as such does not always have to make sense because that's the way it is. No need to get upset or see more than there it is.
It's a steady seven.
The Young Pope
(2016)
A very enjoyable and engaging Watch
21 November 2016
Having watched this on the back of Genius my estimation of Jude Law, as an actor, has soared. His portrayal as the main character is fresh and competent.
I love this genre and to be honest was not so sure about this interpretation initially. It is unconventional and a bit raunchy as is the way with most modern story telling. However, with this caveat in mind it is an excellent concept, exceedingly well executed, acted and directed.
The confrontation of modern expectations and traditional morals is well handled. This is definitely one for the thinking person and if you like to be mentally engaged then this series is for you.
Highly recommended.
I love this genre and to be honest was not so sure about this interpretation initially. It is unconventional and a bit raunchy as is the way with most modern story telling. However, with this caveat in mind it is an excellent concept, exceedingly well executed, acted and directed.
The confrontation of modern expectations and traditional morals is well handled. This is definitely one for the thinking person and if you like to be mentally engaged then this series is for you.
Highly recommended.
The Neon Demon
(2016)
One for the Arties
3 November 2016
What is Keanu Reeves up to? I never thought Keanu was the best actor in the world but always had the knack of securing good roles in decent movies. Sorry Keanu but I don't know what your up to lately? I used to enjoy movies you appeared in but the last few I've watched have been proper ropy (at best) and this one follows the trend.
I believe it is has European input into the movie and I know they have a history of making some good horror flicks but they also make a lot of weird stuff and this qualifies for the latter. It's not that it's a badly made movie because the visuals are well presented, if extremely stylized, but my oh my is it tedious. If you're into prolonged scenes slowly zooming to a score of irritatingly quirky sound effects then this one's for you.
I believe it is has European input into the movie and I know they have a history of making some good horror flicks but they also make a lot of weird stuff and this qualifies for the latter. It's not that it's a badly made movie because the visuals are well presented, if extremely stylized, but my oh my is it tedious. If you're into prolonged scenes slowly zooming to a score of irritatingly quirky sound effects then this one's for you.
Mr. Robot
(2015–2019)
Season Two: You're losing it.
31 July 2016
Writers should be sacked or at least taken off the Ritalin. I watched up to episode 3 of season 2. When Elliot start slagging off God and religion (how enlightened for the seventeenth century). I mean is there any other clichéd "I'm so clever I read Voltaire" BS you want to vomit on your audience?
Stop trying to be clever, because you're not, and start entertaining, which you're not. If I want to hear pretentious "know it alls" spouting what they think they know then I can just venture down to my local wine bar or go on Google+ forums.
If I want to be entertained with a good story then I watch a TV program. Remember who you are and forget what you think you know and get on with what your supposed to be doing: entertaining people, not alienating them with your opinions. I don't care what Elliot believes or thinks. I am not interested in his world view. I want a good conspiracy story-line, not a naval gazing session of his personal demons. It's boring and of no story telling value. He's a hacker and a nut case we all get that. Now move on with the story. Understand what you should be doing and start doing it or else you will loose your audience.
Stop trying to be clever, because you're not, and start entertaining, which you're not. If I want to hear pretentious "know it alls" spouting what they think they know then I can just venture down to my local wine bar or go on Google+ forums.
If I want to be entertained with a good story then I watch a TV program. Remember who you are and forget what you think you know and get on with what your supposed to be doing: entertaining people, not alienating them with your opinions. I don't care what Elliot believes or thinks. I am not interested in his world view. I want a good conspiracy story-line, not a naval gazing session of his personal demons. It's boring and of no story telling value. He's a hacker and a nut case we all get that. Now move on with the story. Understand what you should be doing and start doing it or else you will loose your audience.
Cell
(I) (2016)
A very interesting Movie
19 June 2016
I, like many on IMDb, am a Stephen King fan and I read this book. I did so a couple of years back so cannot remember a lot of it. I remember them held up in the hotel but to be honest I keep on thinking of World War Z when I try to remember the Cell as a book. So I cannot really comment on how close it was but suffice to say it is a departure from the novel. I do not think that is a bad thing because the themes in the movie are still very interesting. The flock and the influence of modern communications in Zombifying us as a people is a very scary one. The movie touched on enough to stay with me and I watch a lot of movies and I cannot say that about many. I enjoyed this movie and I thought it was clever in ways. At times I thought it was predictable and clichéd. it was like I was watching an episode of the Walking Dead or Z Nation as the story line followed in a similar vein. It is not as bad as some make out. As with all movies it all depends on your expectations and frame of mind when watching it. I had no expectations and generally my frame of mind was open so I really enjoyed it.I thought the closing sequence, although somewhat predictable, was quite poignant and I can still see it in my mind's eye. For this alone I give it full marks.
Last Shift
(I) (2014)
This is a proper scary movie.
12 October 2015
I watch a lot of horror movies and I am rarely scared but this one had me in cold sweats. I watched this one blind. I have never heard of it so I was pleasantly (or unpleasantly) surprised. Maybe that was the reason I found it so good? I say good but not a totally enjoyable experience. It was actually uncomfortable to watch at times it was so intense. It just didn't let up.
It's felt like Woman in Black meets Event Horizon (in an abandoned police station?). I am talking about my experience and the feel of the movie.It just reminded me of those two rather than any specific elements. So don't expect any Spacemen or Victorians.
The story's main protagonist feature alone for the majority of the movie with a supporting cast that could be counted on two hands. It is a low budget but not badly acted or filmed. The story-line engages and although a little predictable at times is still very believable and totally absorbing. It is well crafted film.
If you're up for a scary movie then watch this one but don't watch it alone :)
It's felt like Woman in Black meets Event Horizon (in an abandoned police station?). I am talking about my experience and the feel of the movie.It just reminded me of those two rather than any specific elements. So don't expect any Spacemen or Victorians.
The story's main protagonist feature alone for the majority of the movie with a supporting cast that could be counted on two hands. It is a low budget but not badly acted or filmed. The story-line engages and although a little predictable at times is still very believable and totally absorbing. It is well crafted film.
If you're up for a scary movie then watch this one but don't watch it alone :)
Area 51
(2015)
A promise unfulfilled.
13 August 2015
This is a garbage movie. I was somewhat encouraged at the beginning as it started well enough. The tension was good at points to hold my attention but then it just unraveled.
The whole point of this movie is it is building up to something but that something was just not worth the wait. They started with a half- decent concept but had no idea where to go with it. The whole plot just fell apart. The ending is so lame and predictable that it beggars belief! Really? Is that the best you could come up with?
They came they saw they just wasted my time.
Don't waste your time... it simply is not worth the time and energy.
The whole point of this movie is it is building up to something but that something was just not worth the wait. They started with a half- decent concept but had no idea where to go with it. The whole plot just fell apart. The ending is so lame and predictable that it beggars belief! Really? Is that the best you could come up with?
They came they saw they just wasted my time.
Don't waste your time... it simply is not worth the time and energy.
The Lost Legion
(2014)
Decent Movie with scope for development
7 August 2015
I think some of the reviews are unfair and so I wanted to add some balance and I feel the score of this movie in not justified. The opening sequence suggested what Gladiator would have been like on a budget. The storyline is convoluted and requires some attention. However, after watching it I wanted more. Over all I enjoyed this movie. There are some good points and bad but there is definite scope for a sequel and given the right director this could be a decent trilogy.
The acting is mixed but taken as a whole is decent and believable. Even the boy emperor character although questionable is redeemable. I liked the characters of the barbarian King and the Maximus (I will have vengeance. In this life or the next). I felt there was potential to develop these characters more.
I will not say this is a great movie because it is not. I will say that it is definitely worth a watch and give it a high score simply to balance the scales because it is not as bad as some make out.
The acting is mixed but taken as a whole is decent and believable. Even the boy emperor character although questionable is redeemable. I liked the characters of the barbarian King and the Maximus (I will have vengeance. In this life or the next). I felt there was potential to develop these characters more.
I will not say this is a great movie because it is not. I will say that it is definitely worth a watch and give it a high score simply to balance the scales because it is not as bad as some make out.
The Man from Earth
(2007)
Poor acting poor directing poor cinematography Just Poor
7 June 2015
Reading some of the highly listed reviews I though I was about to watch an overlooked gem. I was sadly mistaken. I am a fan of Sci-Fi and the lack of CGI didn't put me off. The opening scene made it apparent this was a low budget straight to TV release but I was still prepared to watch this movie for the promise of something special. I was deeply disappointed. This movie is so bad it doesn't even warrant a one.
The story line is so shambolic it could only have come from a seriously deranged mental patient. The characters are so annoyingly stereotypical that painting a 2 dimensional picture of them would give them depth. The look and feel of the movie screams cheap so loud it would bring the birds from the trees.
This is just a very poor movie on so many levels that to see it get an 8 is just amazing. Probably the only amazing thing about this movie. Save your time and money.
The story line is so shambolic it could only have come from a seriously deranged mental patient. The characters are so annoyingly stereotypical that painting a 2 dimensional picture of them would give them depth. The look and feel of the movie screams cheap so loud it would bring the birds from the trees.
This is just a very poor movie on so many levels that to see it get an 8 is just amazing. Probably the only amazing thing about this movie. Save your time and money.
Constantine
(2014–2015)
What's the problem with Constantine's accent?
18 December 2014
Firstly, the show is OK. I am not a fan of the comic book so cannot comment on its faithfulness to it. I watched the movie and liked so decided to give the TV show a watch based on this. However, I cannot get over the accent of Constantine. According to his own admission he is supposed to be from Liverpool. Originally I thought the actor was an American who spent to much time trying to imitate Sean Bean cause the accent he speaks with is a Yorkshire one. Then I discover Matt Ryan is actually Welsh so he definitely should know better. The only conclusion I can draw is that he was told to sound like Sean Bean cause it maybe would help the rating. What's wrong with the scouse accent? I am not from Liverpool but I know live close to the city and I love the accent. Also Constantine mentions that he spent time as a child in the mines in Liverpool. There ain't no mines in Liverpool. Corporates... I despair of your meddling in the creative process. However, if this is the doing of the writers then you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Z Nation
(2014–2018)
Who ate my brain.... asks the makers of Z nation?
14 October 2014
How can people make such a bad job of a storyline with infinite possibilities? I mean Zombie apocalypse gives you the whole world to use and an infinite amount of characters to play with and develop.
Honestly this is the best you can do?
Pay peanuts and get monkeys springs to mind and this sums up Z Nation. There is very little to engage the viewer. I endured up to episode five and just had enough. When they started getting creative by going all'Good Morning Vietnam' with that annoying character, that just was a bridge too far (sorry too generalised for this show: I mean the particularly annoying eejit stuck in the base station with the dog not to be confused with the myriad of other eejits populating this show) .
Annoying characters. Hack storyline. Abysmal special effects. Definitely one for the brain dead :)
Honestly this is the best you can do?
Pay peanuts and get monkeys springs to mind and this sums up Z Nation. There is very little to engage the viewer. I endured up to episode five and just had enough. When they started getting creative by going all'Good Morning Vietnam' with that annoying character, that just was a bridge too far (sorry too generalised for this show: I mean the particularly annoying eejit stuck in the base station with the dog not to be confused with the myriad of other eejits populating this show) .
Annoying characters. Hack storyline. Abysmal special effects. Definitely one for the brain dead :)
Tell Your Friends