Change Your Image
rorymacveigh-66661
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Meteor (1979)
Two hours of bickering
When I was a kid I used to love this film, but now I seriously don't because all it is basically is 2 hours of watching scientists and government officials bicker at one another, forgetting the fact that there's a horrible meteor on its way to wipe us out.
The story is just simply a Comet smashes into an Asteroid and sends a large chunk 5 miles across towards Earth, and it's up to a group of scientists from both the USA and the USSR to put aside their differences and come up with a way to stop it before it hits in 6 days time.
The problem is the sense of urgency is really removed when you find out that both nations have Nuclear Missile Satellites in orbit that were built for the purpose of destroying meteors/destroying each other's countries, and all the scientists have to do is turn them around to face space. The most gripping part of the whole thing is basically just watching these two silly things turn around at the push of a button, whereupon all sense of suspense and challenge is lost. The missiles have the capability to destroy the meteor, so that's all well and good. If the government's had to build these satellites in 6 days and we had to look through their various trials and tribulations, then we'd be much more invested.
The special effects aren't exactly special it's got to be said. I mean these things just look so darn cheap! They look like they were bought by mail order from Airfix! In some scenes what is supposed to be the Sun is so obviously a spotlight because you can see the light reflecting off the casing! The rest of the movie is basically an onslaught of choppy Stock Footage mixed with some poorly superimposed effects. You'd think after Star Wars we would have solved the problem of unconvincing, cheap special effects, but this movie proves us wrong I guess!
The acting is as cheesy and over-the-top as you'd expect, with everyone's stuttering line delivery and sudden outbursts of yelling being almost laughable. Again, only Sean Connery I found investing enough to watch, and every line he said I listened to. The rest of them I barely remember, although I think one of the generals may have been from North by Northwest.
Overall, give this movie a serious pass. Although the story is somewhat creative, it's execution is very poor, with horrible effects, horrible acting and a plot resolution that really removes all suspense.
Hotel Transylvania (2012)
Don't listen to the critics! This movie is amazing!
This movie really is a breath of fresh air, it's just so much fun to watch and you find yourself gripped the whole way through because the characters you really enjoy. Indeed some of the jokes do fall down, but other than that, the fast pacing, the constant movement, the acting and the general tone of the whole thing is just a ton of fun to watch!
So what's the pickle? After the death of his wife, Dracula opens up a hotel in Transylvania for all the ghouls and monsters to come and relax at away from the fear of humans, whilst at the same time trying to manage his daughter's leaving home at the sprightly young age of 180 (I remember that age well, not nearly as exciting). Anyway, Dracula is rumbled when a backpacker comes across the hotel, and it's up to the famous creature of the night to keep him hidden whilst also running a hotel and managing his daughter.
To be honest, there's very little you can say about this film because there's really just so much to enjoy. The animation and design of the characters is fun to watch and great to look at, and the pacing is done so quickly that you can't help but laugh at the physical humour because there's so much going on at once! The problem however comes with some of the verbal jokes, which do fall down in places. I mean they're not particularly bad, but they don't exactly make you laugh either. But the rest of the humour in this movie is very, very good!
The story as well is also quite a unique tale, especially the story revolving around Dracula and his daughter, which makes you feel for and understand their plight and why they're so reluctant to come into contact with Humans.
Other than that though this movie is a million flavours of fun to watch, being fast, witty, clever in places, with fantastic characters, animation and design, and just generally being amazingly pleasant to watch!
Highlander II: The Quickening (1991)
What the hell just happened?!
I've heard so much about the wretchedness of this movie, and also because I'm a huge fan of the original, I really had to sit down and watch this apparently hilariously bad movie. So, I sat down, watched it, and found myself laughing my socks off the whole way through! This movie is just so bad on so many levels, and boggles the mind so many times, you really can't help but laugh. I mean, was this meant to be an action movie? Because the decisions made in the practically non-existent story and the almost impossible events that occur will leave you in stitches!
So what's the muffin? In 1994 the Ozone layer is fading, and thus a mortal Connor MacLeod comes up with a shield that will block out the sun and thus save the planet, at the expense of the fact that it would cause ecological devastation and wipe out humanity in many other ways, but whatever. Anyway, apparently the Immortals from the last movie weren't just a select few for an unknown reason, no, no, they were aliens, banished from the Planet Zeist 5,000 years earlier to earth and granted immortality as punishment(?!) Hey, if that's punishment, sign me up for more!
Anyway, because the evildoer who runs Zeist named General Katana (imaginative name if ever there was one) is apparently bored and he decides 5,000 years after MacLeod left the planet that he should now kill him, and thus teams up with the evil leader of the Planetary Shield to hunt down and destroy MacLeod.
So, what specifically is wrong with this movie? Well, apart from the fact that it takes everything established in the previous movie and turns it on its head is a bad start. The number of gaping plot holes in this movie would be enough to sink Greenland, for example, how calling someone's name can make them magically appear from the dead? What on earth happened there?!
But it get's worse, the acting is as hokey as you could possibly get, the special effects are laughably fake, the fight choreography isn't as good as the original, the villain, and for that matter any of the other characters, have nothing to make them interesting, and basically, if you happened to watch this movie first rather than the original movie, you wouldn't know who any of these characters are because there is little to no reference to the original. The idea of a sequel is to build on the previous movie with at least some reference to it so as to enhance the story, but this one appears to be made up as it goes!
Overall, it's a jumbled mess, but incredibly funny to watch. I was just astounded the first time I saw this as to how wrong they could possibly make this film! I totally recommend you watch this film if you're in the mood for a laugh, especially if you've seen the previous film, because like myself you'll probably be giggling till your sides hurt!
Highlander (1986)
An underrated masterpiece!
This really is a fantastic film with a fantastic story, not perfect perhaps, but I give it 9* because frankly the parts it does well, it does really really well!
The story revolves around Connor Macleod, a Scottish Highlander who is abruptly killed in a Clan War by an ancient warrior from the east known as the Kurgan. It is found though that he does not die, but in fact becomes immortal, and centuries later in 1985 New York he and the Kurgan are once again drawn to battle in the streets of the Big Apple to fight to the death so as to gain the ambiguous 'Prize'.
Now, what parts of this film are good? Near enough everything in my mind. There's heart, there's emotion, there's well choreographed and gripping action scenes, the story is well paced and keeps you interested, and the acting for the most part is very very good! Indeed I won't say Christopher Lambert is my favourite actor, and some of his acting in this is a bit over-the-top and hard to sit through, but the performances of Sean Connery and Clancy Brown are a ton of fun to watch, Connery being the strong minded and wise mentor, whilst Brown is the psychotic warrior of the past.
The soundtrack though is one of my favourites as it's all done by Queen, with some incredible and even emotional songs that help set the tone. 'Who Wants to Live Forever' is indeed the best song in this film, really bringing on the emotions of the scene and making it all the more tragic.
Overall, this film gets my support every time I watch it! It's a great movie with intense action, great acting, a soundtrack you can sink your teeth into and a story that keeps you pinned for the whole running time!
The Long Good Friday (1980)
The iconic British gangster film!
This movie is an amazing blend of story and action, and pulls off the amazing feat of having a gangster movie with some real heart and some classic charm that was missing from many similar movies of this period and most movies since. The characters are unforgettable and at the very least relatable, you see them and know their plight as they go through this dark period of time.
So what's the bacon? Bob Hoskins plays Harold Shand, a London Gangster who's brought about peace in the Capital's gangster scene. However, on the day he plans to sign a giant East End development project with American investors, his organisation is rocked by the murder of his childhood friend and a bomb blowing up his Rolls Royce. Shand now has the ordeal of tracking down the people attempting to destroy his organisation whilst at the same time keeping it a secret from the Americans.
So, the good stuff? All of it if I'm honest. It's got heart, with all the characters being at the very least human, not invincible husks with no personality and no real human traits. Shand isn't invincible, he's simply a man who's built himself up from the gutters of the London slums to become the kingpin of the city, and you can really feel for his emotions and really want him to find a way out all the way through the movie.
The story is an absolute cracker, strong, coherent, chocked full of twists and really good fun to sit through. At the same time the film, unlike many of the same period, is surprisingly subtle. There aren't an onslaught of nauseating gun battles, nor is it just continual fist fights with no connection to the plot other than to cram in a load of action. It is a fantastic blend of story and style, which I love to bits!
To top it all off as well, the soundtrack, although very simple, is fantastic and absolutely catchy. Bet your bottom dollar that you'll be humming the theme tune to this movie for a week after viewing!
What else can I say? The story's great, the characters are great, the music's great, it's grounded, down-to-earth and overall a fantastic movie. One of my all time faves and definitely my favourite gangster flick!
Last Action Hero (1993)
Great fun!
I enjoy this movie, despite its many faults, for the fact that it's not only quite a clever satire of the action movie genre as a whole, but also because it's a very good action movie itself. Indeed the number of plot holes in this movie could put Iceland on the bottom of the Atlantic, but if you take it for what it is, a silly, over- the-top action movie, then you're guaranteed entertainment!
So what's the Calamari? Danny Madigan is a lonely boy with a big imagination but a busy mother, and spends a majority of his time watching the new series of action movies starring Arnold Schwarzenegger called Jack Slater. However, his friend, the owner of the cinema, gives him a magic ticket which transports him into the movie, and thus he has to try and convince Jack that all this is a movie whilst also trying to dodge death from violent gangsters.
The bad bits? There are a million tons of plot holes and story problems in this movie, be they through continuity errors, incidents in the movie that either don't go anywhere or are never addressed, which can be quite confusing, and at points it can drag as there are quite a few talking scenes.
But other than that, if you're someone who enjoys action movies with a bit of emotion thrown in, then this is really the movie for you. I wont give away what the emotional scenes are, but let's just say that they are handled quite well. The acting in this movie is largely done to satirise the action movie genre, including the sarcastic main hero, the cool, calm (and quintessentially British) main villain, a selection of comedic sidekicks and quite a few rather obscure cameos. In fact if you want yourself a drinking game, count how many celebrities or characters from other movies show up in this film, you'll be under the table in no time!
Apart from the various problems, this movie is still great fun! I really enjoy it as both a satire of action films and a satire of itself, really pointing out a majority of the clichés both in terms of previous movies and indeed of Arnold Schwarzenegger himself!
The Pagemaster (1994)
It's 'okay' at a stretch
Now this was popular with Cartoon Network, when I was growing up this was always a classic movie special for the channel, and as a kid I do have some fond memories of this film. But as an adult I can see the problems of which there are many.
What's the marshmallow? Macaulay Culkin plays Richard Tyler, a nervous and awkward child who allows statistics to control his life, meaning he never does anything sporty or risky like other kids. This all changes though when he enters a creepy library to escape a raging storm, and is soon thrown into an enchanted animated world where he has to locate the exit. On the way he picks up three books, Adventure, Fantasy and Horror, who help him embark on his quest through the library and all the mysterious and strange wonders it may entail.
Now, the problems. It is quite slow in places which even as a kid left me rather turned off to it. At the same time there are quite a few little holes in the story that do make you scratch your head in confusion. Another problem I found as a kid was the fact that it only dabbled in three genres of literature. What about Science Fiction, Non-Fiction, Action, Celebrity Autobiography? I realise they're trying to keep it simple, but it didn't have to be as simple as that!
Also, it's simplistic nature does cause some issues when they come across literary legends as they're literally just glanced over! If it weren't for the fact that I'd heard of these icons of novels already, you wouldn't know who they were or what stories they were from as the movie never takes the time to explain them properly!
But on the plus side, the animation is very good, with some lovely colours and an interesting art style. As a kid I never had any complaints on that front. Another good thing is that the story, while as mentioned slow in places, does keep you gripped long enough to watch it.
On the whole, a lot of problems with the film, but at the same time some good things that will keep you entertained. Perhaps for younger kids I'd say this movie is recommended, but for adults you'll probably find yourself disinterested.
Moonwalker (1988)
Quite a bit of fun!
Yes, this film is basically just 90 minutes of Michael Jackson massaging his ego, but to be honest it is very entertaining in sort of a 'turn-your-brain-off' way.
What's the story? That's a little hard to explain as it really is quite a convoluted vignette of stories partially documenting Michael Jackson's life, whilst at the same time put together with a lot of new material which is attempting to be similar to the contemporary action movies with a bit of film noir and Star Wars style action.
The most jarring thing about this film is the fact that it is very very surreal. I won't give anything away but some scenes you can't help but question the motivation of Jackson and what his thought process was at the time! But it's very entertaining all the same!
The songs though are absolutely fantastic, with all of his greatest hits including 'Bad', 'Smooth Criminal', 'Leave Me Alone', etc, all being featured. If you're not an MJ fan then I can't recommend, but if you are an MJ fan, then this soundtrack is worth way more than the price of admission!
So overall, I give this movie 6/10 for the fact that it is very much one long ego-trip, but at the same time is a very entertaining, if quite strange, journey through the mind and imagination of the late King of Pop. If you're an honest fan of MJ, you really can't miss this one!
Cars (2006)
A fun and colourful adventure!
Something of a phenomenon when it was released, everyone was talking about this movie when it came out. But to be honest the idea of giving cars eyes, faces and personalities is not a new thing, I mean Thomas the Tank Engine already had that one figured with Bertie the Bus a good 50 years ago!
But anyway, what I think of the movie. It's actually not that bad, it's quite a chirpy, upbeat little story about a fast paced, high flying racing car that becomes stranded in a rural desert town and after being imprisoned there for some time grows to appreciate the quiet life that these other cars lead. Not a particular fan of Owen Wilson's voice, it does become grating after a while but the voice actors for the other cars aren't that bad. Very good animation, of course you can't expect anything less from Pixar, the folks that gave us Toy Story and Finding Nemo.
However, some of the jokes are a bit awkward, I dare say the only people who would notice are really car enthusiasts, but even then they're a bit outlandish. For example, at one point Lightning points out that the female car (a Porsche 996) is a Carrera.
What does that mean?
Does it mean she's got a 3.4L engine? Does it mean she's got a Tiptronic Transmission to allow for both Automatic and Manual drive? Was it a school she went to? What's the joke?
Yeah, jokes like that are a little confused at times, and even make car enthusiasts scratch their head in confusion because there's no punchline or closure to them. But that doesn't make the movie an abject failure, in fact I think it holds up pretty well. I certainly enjoyed watching it, not my favourite film in the whole world mind you, but I could still see it as a pleasant little piece that kids would enjoy. Certainly sold a lot of toys I seem to recall, I ended up procuring a few of them in Happy Meals!
The Poseidon Adventure (1972)
Peril under the sea!
From that time in movie history where our desire to build bigger and better things led us to make films that devoted their entire time do destroying those big and better things, and the Poseidon Adventure has gone down in history as one of the greatest disaster movies of all time. For me personally, it's a very good film, but there are some things that drag it down (pun possibly intended).
What's the cauliflower? The film follows the passengers and crew of the SS Poseidon, sailing through the Mediterranean on its final voyage before decommissioning. On New Year's Eve the ship is at full sail, but in order to meet schedule the representative of the Shipping Line insists that the ship continues on course without taking on ballast, to the unsuccessful protest of the Captain. As night falls the passengers gather in the ballroom for their New Year's Party, but reports come in of an undersea earthquake that has triggered a massive Tsunami, which strikes the ship causing it to capsize because it's too top-heavy, leaving the entire vessel floating but upside down. The film follows a handful of survivors as they attempt to make their way to the thinnest part of the ship's hull in the hope that they can be rescued, dodging death on their slowly sinking vessel every step of the way!
To me, the film is very very good at building the tension, the fact that these people are trapped inside a giant metal coffin with no way out. They have no idea whether going to their destination will result in the rescue, but that thin slither of hope keeps them going through all odds, and that's what keeps you gripped. You want to see these people escape, and you find it genuinely tragic when many of them die, some more suddenly than others.
I do however have some peeves. One is the whole idea of the ship being stuck upside down like that. I somehow get the feeling that the vessel would still sink, with what air is trapped in the hull just finding a weakness and bursting through to let more water in. But that's technical shipbuilding babble that nags me.
The other problem is that some of the acting does get a little corny at times, with some of the performances going a little over-the-top. Indeed a romantic relationship between two of the characters is a bit hard to comprehend as well, and ultimately leads to nothing.
But other than that, the rest of the film is a very intense, very gripping thriller about escaping what can be some people's interpretation of hell. The sets and locations built to replicate the inner workings of the vessel are done perfectly, making you truly believe that you're actually in the bowels of an upturned ship. The action scenes are also quite poignant, keeping you on the edge of your seat as they dodge death at every turn, from boiling vats of water, to bursting bulkheads and collapsing pieces of the ship's interior.
On the whole, as a survival thriller movie I'd say definitely give it a watch!
Deep Rising (1998)
Oh boy, this is a cornfest!
I remember seeing the promos for this movie saying this was the scariest thing since Tremors, so naturally I had to give it a watch...
...and boy was it a letdown!
So what's the banana? Out on its maiden voyage, the Cruise Ship Argonautica and its passengers celebrate with an evening party, only for the vessel to be abruptly plunged into darkness. Meanwhile, a Captain named Finnegan, who's piloting a boat with a compliment of Mercenaries, is taken captive by them, revealing themselves to be in actuality Pirates who intend to rob the Argonautica of all its riches and sink it. Upon reaching the blacked out liner, they discover all but a handful of people have been killed by an unforeseen tentacled creature, that's infested the ship's ventilation system and can strike without warning. What follows is a desperate fight to survive about the stricken vessel, whilst also partaking in a clumsy collection of stupid plots and conflicting story lines that make you more and more confused.
Okay, what's so bad about this film? The acting for starters, which is very cheesy and over the top. I would like to think that this is similar to Tremors in that it's a satire of what people would act like in such a horrific situation, but this is meant to be taken seriously, and with these performances... no.
Next, the CGI, which is so laughably poor and fake looking you'd think it was just hashed together in 20 minutes on Flash Studio. It's pixelated, the creatures never look convincing, and it really is very dated.
Next up, the story, which, as mentioned, is very confusing. If it was simply just a basic plot about a rescue ship sent out to find a stricken cruise liner, only to come across a vessel filled with horrible monsters, that would make for a gripping adventure/horror story. Instead, we have pirates, crossed with an insurance scandal, crossed with another thief who's already on the ship, crossed with implausible attempts to resolve the problem, and with the movie ending on probably the lowest point you could. I won't give it away but it really is undeniably stupid.
So, to sum up, this movie is very, very bad, in more ways than one. The CGI is bad, the story is bad, the acting is bad, aside from a few jump-scares it's not that frightening, and when you do finally get to see the monster, you never thought you'd be laughing at the end of this movie! I certainly was, it was really bad!
The Towering Inferno (1974)
A high flying fire in the sky!
One of the many disaster movies of the early 1970's, the Towering Inferno, while a bit longer than the other movies of this period, I consider probably the best because it does seem to combine character with disaster so as to make it a human situation. Indeed there are a lot of implausible moments, and after the destruction of the World Trade Center you can't help but make comparisons, but other than that it's a solid action movie.
So what's the barbecue? We find ourselves in San Francisco, and it's the opening night of the Glass Tower, the world's tallest skyscraper at a height of 138 stories. As guests arrive, the architect, Doug Roberts, has doubts that the cheaply made electric system will be able to hold the intended light show, but his worries are sidelined so as not to rock the boat. Sure enough a fire does start and very soon the building is engulfed in flames, trapping hundreds of people at the top-floor restaurant.
Now, the bad things. There are plenty of moments where the actions taken and the decisions made you can't help but think are insane. For example, when the initial fire is reported, the building's owner refuses to evacuate. At the same time, guiding people to the elevators when there's a fire, of course that's going to end well!
At the same time, there's plenty of implausible things, such as running a Breeches Buoy between the two skyscrapers I think is a little out there, as well as the fact that there's a bit of a silly 'happy' ending that I won't give away, but will have you scratching your head in confusion. Although obviously the attacks on the Twin Towers hadn't happened yet, there are many things that are and aren't included in this movie that do seem questionable. For example, the fact that even though the best part of 100 floors are on fire, no smoke seems to be rising into the restaurant causing people to choke. Indeed in one of the original books on which this is based smoke rises into the floors causing people to wither.
There are many inexplicable and random explosions within the structure which shouldn't happen since this is an electrical fire. For me, the most obvious problem is the fact that this building has been on fire for hours, and has apparently had several large explosions which are said to be near the core, yet it doesn't collapse not even partially. Of course the argument can be made that a fire in a large steel building had never happened before, but many shows and films prior to this depicting a devastating inferno in a tall building have the structure collapse or partially crumble. I know these are probably personal peeves, but they did have me confused.
Other than that, there's nothing really wrong with this movie. Aside from the fact that there's some fantastic pyrotechnics, and the mixture of models and practical effects adds to the immersion in a story that back in 1974 would have been difficult to tell. One of the better parts of this movie are in fact the characters, who are all well developed, but at the same time seem human. While some of the characters make silly decisions, like why the couple in the office didn't escape when the fire was quite a way away rather than waiting for the flames to start licking at their door, or why the building wasn't evacuated the moment a fire was reported, other characters have novel little touches that make them seem much more relatable.
My personal favourite moment is when Steve McQueen's character goes up in the elevator to inform the building's owner that the fire is out of control, whilst on the way he takes off his fireman's jacket and helmet so as not to cause a panic, which I found was a great touch because it shows he's a thinking and concerned Fire Chief, trying to maintain calm in such a difficult and dark situation.
Overall, aside from some of the physical problems of implausibility with regard to some of the scenes, this is a very good, very entertaining action movie. Indeed the story isn't complex, simply just put out the fire without getting yourself killed, but it's the fact that it takes the time to give it a bit more a human touch than some of the other disaster movies of the time. I personally enjoy this film greatly as it manages to blend an unqualified tragic nightmare of a situation with realistic characters who you enjoy and want to see escape.
Earthquake (1974)
2 Hours of talking... with an Earthquake somewhere in there!
My main complaint with this movie is the fact that it is very, very, very slow, and there are some silly, silly decisions. I would be interested in the relationships between the characters in terms of the love interest, but sadly it's not particularly interesting and it has to be truncated by a massive natural disaster which does sort of throw things off.
So what's the artichoke? Stewart Graff is a Los Angeles architect, who tires of his dead-end marriage with his argumentative and attention grubbing wife Remy. Secretly he has an affair with the widow of a friend and actress Denise, who has a young son named Corry (at this point it could be a completely different movie!). We're then introduced to a Policeman named Slade, a Daredevil named Miles, and a grocery store owner/National Guard officer named Jody. What follows are a series of quite long winded character introductions that go on for the best part of an hour, which would be okay if it weren't for the fact that it goes on for too long! Anyway, about an hour in the horrible Earthquake strikes, and sends our characters into dismay and a fight for survival as their city crumbles around them, both socially and physically.
Now, the good points. The parts involving the earthquake are played very well. The practical effects involving the destruction of the city are very well done, although with the cases of obvious models taking you out of it a bit. Also, some of the characters we meet you do find yourself siding with, like George Kennedy as Officer Slade, trying to keep order and justice in a city ravaged with destruction.
But as for the rest, aside from the long drawn out character moments, there are some superbly dumb moments. For example, after the earthquake has struck, they setup a temporary refugee centre in an underground car park, at a time when violent aftershocks are bound to happen! And sure enough...
Also, some of the characters act stupidly too, like Slade is suspended from his job for chasing down a criminal although he leaves his department's jurisdiction. The higher ranking officials seem to have a thing for dismissing evidence of an upcoming disaster even though there's nothing to deny the fact that it's going to happen. Although these may be personal peeves, they are ones that do take you out of the movie because you can't help but notice how stupid some of these characters are.
Bottom line, this movie is a fairly generic natural disaster film, but sadly laden with very slow character moments and very silly decisions that do become quite jarring. But I will say this, when the disasters do happen, the practical effects are very good and will keep you gripped, but the problem is you have to go through a lot of very slow and quite dull moments. If you can survive those, then I'd say give it a watch if you want just a silly disaster film.
The Star Wars Holiday Special (1978)
In need for some self harm? Watch this!
Yes, I had the misfortune to watch this horrible, utterly putrid TV special when a friend of mine linked me to it online. So I sat down, watched it, and found myself being driven mental by the fact that nothing happens, apart from the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse, Annoyance, Confusion, Stupidity and Boredom!
So what's the avocado? Hans Solo and Chewbacca attempt to outrun the Empire in the Millennium Falcon, trying to get Chewie home for the Star Wars Universe's equivalent of Christmas, 'Life Day'. For the rest of the special, we're given an insight into what his Wookie family does on this day of days, mostly consisting of watching documentaries about Bea Arthur's cantina on Tatooine, how to put together a Transmitter, how to cook Christmas Dinner, a very strange animated segment which is drawn in such a way it makes you feel like you're on drugs, a disturbing look into what Grandpa Chewie's illicit pleasure program is, 2 hours of grunting and growling with no subtitles which makes all the horrible noises meaningless, and we even get Carrie Fisher singing just to top it all off!
What was even the purpose of this special? It has nothing to do with Christmas, and the holiday they do celebrate isn't elaborated on, you just have to assume that it's similar to Chirstmas. Aside from that, they actually had the unmitigated gall, the sheer temerity, to drag in so many loved celebrities to act in this stupidest of stupid things, including the legendary Star Wars lineup with Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford, whilst also including the aforementioned Bea Arthur, Art Carney and Harvey Korman!
So, to summarize, there's nothing much you can really say about it! It's stupid, it makes no sense, it's the most annoying thing you'll ever watch, it never shuts up, it has no morals, it has no message, it has no guidance or semblance of thought. It's just a huge, ugly mess! If you wish to experience a similar but somewhat more pleasant sound, go to your local Dog Pound, and listen to Dogs bark at you for 2 hours!
Thumbelina (1994)
She's in no rush...
What a strange and paradoxical little movie this is, for a girl who's most important purpose throughout the film is getting home, she certainly takes a roundabout way of doing it, not exactly helped by utterly useless accomplices who spend more time singing poorly written songs rather than lending her an actual hand!
So what's the mango? The film starts with a lonely old woman who yearns for the company of a child to love. In response, the Blue Fairy (I would call her something else but the similarities between this and Pinocchio are beyond obvious) gives her a seed to plant in the garden. The seed grows into a plant, inside of which is a tiny girl the size of a thumb named Thumbelina (which to me seems like a massive con if I'm honest, a girl the size of a thumb, that's nice!). Anyway, one night she's visited by a fairy prince who immediately falls in love with her and takes her for a ride on his Bumblebee steed. Whilst riding, they garner the attention of a Mexican Mariachi band of Toads, who kidnap her after one of them falls obsessively in love with her too. The rest of the film is spent basically following the same story as Pinocchio, trying to get home whilst constantly being distracted by showbiz, marriage to a rich Mole, etc, etc.
The biggest problem with this movie is the sad fact that it's shamefully ripping off Pinocchio. A fairy gives a kind elderly person a child who's obscure in some magical way who is either lost or kidnapped and has to find their way back home whilst being distracted by the glamours of a better but ultimately bad life. The only problem is whilst Pinocchio had the excuse that he was a wide- eyed child who saw things at their exciting face value with no consideration for the consequences, Thumbelina looks and acts like a grown woman in her 20's! The thing I found most jarring as well is the fact that when she does get dragged into various different situations, she really seems to get into it! No attempt to escape, even siding with the prospect in some cases!
One example is when she's made to perform for a Beetle played by Gilbert Gottfried. With little to no convincing she has to dance while disguised as a bug, seems to enjoy dancing as a bug, only to be revealed as a human, laughed off stage, and then she sits and mopes about the fact that the bugs think she's ugly. Who cares what the bugs think? Aren't you supposed to be getting home?! Wasn't that your main objective? Or did you think you'd just failed the Garden's version of the X- Factor?
And again later, she's confronted by the prospect of being married off to an affluent old Mole played by John Hurt, but rather than making a break for it, she joins in the utterly awful song sung by a Mouse and dances around before committing and going up to the altar with him, after only sharing about three lines with the darn Mole!
I thought this girl wanted to get home? From the looks of things I think she needs to be continually reminded!
But this isn't helped by her side characters, all of which seem to serve absolutely no purpose but to spew irritating songs. One of particular annoyance and uselessness is Jacquimo, a bird who constantly sings and fails to do the most obvious thing, pick up Thumbelina, and fly her home! He doesn't explain why he can't do that? It's not like she's too heavy for him or anything, he instead chooses to sing songs, even when she's pleading with him not to go! It's also very obvious that he's just a blatant rip-off of Jiminy Cricket, trying but failing to teach Thumbelina various morals and life lessons, even down to the fact that he's telling the story through flashback!
To summarize, this movie is one without any guidance for its characters, and even though in other movies that would be only a minor problem, in this it's a major one because the movie could have been over in the first 10 minutes, but instead the characters voluntarily give themselves to the obvious problems! Aside from that, the story is very much a rip-off of Pinocchio and the songs are rubbish. I will give it two points though for some very good animation, which is really quite pleasant to look at, and the fact that Gilbert Gottfried throughout this whole movie was a constant source of entertainment. When he was on screen I really couldn't take my eyes off him.
Other than that, I strongly suggest you give this a miss because it will leave you both annoyed and confused at the same time!
Not a good combination!
Volcano (1997)
Like Dante's Peak, only stupider!
As someone who's watched both the simultaneous Volcano disaster movies of 1997, I can say without a doubt that this movie fails to hold a candle to Dante's Peak, simply because whilst the situation in that movie was realistic, though predictable, and the action you could be gripped by with some enjoyable characters to back it up, this film has pretty much the opposite, but still laboured with the predictability aspect.
So what's the red lettuce? Tommy Lee Jones plays Mike Roark the head of the Los Angeles Office of Emergency Management, and after an earthquake rocks the city, he's sent to investigate an apparent gas explosion at the MacArthur Park which has killed several workers. This is followed by strange activity at the La Brea Tar Pits, where some of the sculptures in the pits start to melt. Early the next morning, another violent earthquake rocks the city again and very soon a large lava spewing volcano emerges from the Tar Pits, spreading out into the city. With the assistance of a geologist played by Anne Heche, Roark must try to bring down the destructive force of nature before it wipes out the entire city on its way to the Pacific!
Now, aside from the many glaring plot points and the fact that as a Geography student I could write a paper on how inaccurate this movie is, what specifically is wrong with this movie?
(Although I will say, if you drop 1,000 gallons of water on top of a Volcano like they do towards the end, that won't stop it erupting!)
Well, whilst it maintains the predictable 'the volcano's gonna erupt at some point' streak that Dante's Peak did, it's just generally a bore. The build up to the eruption isn't half as subtle or suspenseful as that in Dante's Peak, and even when the eruption happens it's not particularly exciting. The fact that the lava is moving slowly down the street really takes you out of the excitement, sort of like "Oh my goodness, it'll hit us eventually! Better stick the kettle on then..." Dante's Peak had the advantage of faster moving lava, an acid lake, a wall of debris laden water and a Pyroclastic Flow to keep both us and our heroes on the move.
Next are the characters, who are all unbelievably stupid. Whilst Tommy Lee Jones and Anne Heche I'll excuse for the fact that they actually get stuff done to try and stop this thing, the other character's roles extend to just standing there with their mouths wide open in shock as this big red mass of heat approaches them. The daughter is especially stupid, spending the first half of the movie being a rebellious, angst teen, and the second half just standing gawking at the obvious danger rather than running away or ducking for cover like any other human being would. This is just one of many scenes that you find yourself scratching your head in confusion at, because you really can't let them slide, they're just too stupid for words.
So, to sum up, this movie is exactly the same as Dante's Peak, only much less enjoyable. The most jarring problem is the characters, who are all very stupid and act less like human beings and more like lost sheep! The story's recycled, the CGI is recycled, the pace is slower and less exciting, there's enough plot holes to sink the Isle of Wight, it's just a big boring mess!
Word of advice, avoid, like these characters should have been doing with the lava!
Dante's Peak (1997)
Not as bad as all that!
For some odd reason we really got stuck with natural disaster movies in the late 90's didn't we? And while this film was released in 1997, at pretty much the exact same time Volcano was getting booted out as well. Out of the two though, this is by far the better movie, largely because it's a much more believable situation with believable characters and scenarios (for the most part, but I'll get to the jarring one's later).
So what's the cabbage? Harry Dolton is a Volcanologist working for the US Geological Survey, and is sent to the small town of Dante's Peak in the Cascade Mountains after reports of strange anomalies regarding its local namesake mountain. Upon arrival, he meets with the town's Mayor and moonlighting coffee shop owner Rachel Wando. Although Harry is convinced that the dormant volcano is starting to reawaken, no one else believes him, and he has to try and convince the town and his superiors at the USGS that this mountain is big, bad and ready to blow!
Now, the bad parts? This film really is too predictable for words. You know the mountain is going to blow at some point, and you know that the peaceful little town they try to show off as being all beautiful and lovely in the beginning is going to be wiped out. You know Pierce Brosnan is right and everyone else is wrong.
Also there are a few very silly scenes that will make you scratch your head in confusion. Firstly, why did the three choose to drive their boat right across the middle of the acid lake rather than sticking to the shore? Why didn't Dreyfus get out of his car on the bridge rather than attempting the impossible? And, most obviously, you can't drive a pickup truck across molten lava and expect to come out okay! Nor can a pickup truck outrun a Pyroclastic Cloud travelling at 200mph! As someone who graduated in Geography, I may have a bit of an advantage, but I'm sure anyone will know that these things really don't happen! Also as a Geography student I was quick to point out the numerous flaws in the geographical accuracy of this eruption, but I won't bore you to death with that!
As well as that, there's a few scenes which are simply played for action's sake. One example being in the wood cabin and the Lava bursts through the wall at our heroes. You can't seriously tell me that they didn't notice the fact that things were getting a little hot in there, especially since 1,000 degree lava is literally on the other side of a thin log wall!
But there are many good points to this film as well. The story, although predictable, is still quite gripping. The buildup to the volcanic eruption is played quite well and suspenseful, even though you find the other characters stupid for not taking Harry up on his advice even though every single bit of evidence points to him being right!
The CGI is also very impressive in places, though perhaps a little choppy in others. The practical effects are good though, especially with the destruction of the town and buildings crumbling. The acting is fairly robust, although many characters have confusing motivations and you wonder why they're thinking what they're thinking, none of the performances are awful per say.
Overall, the film is quite gripping though predictable, and even a touch suspenseful in the first half, but doesn't really go down hill in the second half, so much as becomes the standard action movie of running away from the horrible danger with a crescendo of CGI and explosions to top it all off. Not the greatest film ever made and does indeed have many silly moments that do take you out of it somewhat, but it's fairly solid. For a rainy Saturday afternoon movie you can turn your brain off to, this is definitely a contender.
Twister (1996)
Surprisingly good fun!
Indeed if you've heard reviews for this movie people will tell you that it's all just CGI style and no substance. To be honest though, it's not as bad as you might think, if anything it's really very entertaining. While not a particularly thought provoking movie, if anything it's more another one of those silly action movies you turn your brain off to and watch the pretty images go by, it was still enough to keep me hooked, with there being no scenes in the film which are particularly cringeworthy.
So what's the pasta? In Oklahoma, meteorologist and Tornado Chaser Bill heads out into the wilds with his fiancée to have divorce papers signed by his current estranged wife Jo. Although failing to get the divorce paper's signed, Bill sticks around because he and Jo's project, a Tornado reading machine called Dorothy, has been perfected and ready to be deployed into Tornado's so as to study their movements and properties, spurred on also by the fact that his rival, a man named Jonas, has also created his own version of Dorothy and intends to beat them to this multimillion Dollar breakthrough. What follows is Jo, Bill and their team of fellow Tornado Chasers embarking on an epic pursuit across the Oklahoma countryside to track down as many Twisters as they can and get their machine successfully deployed before all of them are destroyed or Jonas gets there first!
Indeed the film isn't particularly thought inducing, it's a fairly basic A > B plot of trying to get these machines into Tornado's, whilst occasionally having to dodge death by the violent storms. The thing that makes this film so good though is the action, which is very intense, especially the Tornado that strikes at night, and the really very good CGI, which, for 1996, is very impressive. The Tornado's look and feel as big as they're depicted, which makes them all the more intimidating.
The acting is fairly standard, although the bickering between Jo and Bill can be quite funny at times, with a few emotional scenes thrown into the mix. The soundtrack absolutely rocks my socks off every time, with a selection of fantastic artists including Deep Purple, Eric Clapton, Lisa Loeb and the mighty Goo Goo Dolls!
Overall though, while I consider this a film I don't put much thought into, it's still an entertaining and very exciting flick, keeping me glued for every single minute!
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)
A film with potential... ruined!
If I was going to go by the first 15 minutes of this film, I'd say it was the foundations of a gripping and exciting period action film. Those introductory moments of this movie had me gripped, only to be botched by the biggest letdown I've ever seen. It's not often I don't watch a movie the whole way through, but this really did go from something great, to something so stupid it just falls into a league of its own! I realise this is based on a comic series of the same premise, but even in those boundaries this movie is rubbish!
How does this amazing story start? In 1899, what resembles a British World War I tank breaks into the Bank of England and steals millions of Pounds of gold, the crime apparently being enacted by men dressed in German army uniforms. This is later compounded by a similar attack on a German Zeppelin factory, where British soldiers and a masked figure in a dark cloak destroy a large amount of equipment and kidnap a group of scientists. This results in the recruitment of Allan Quatermain, who is enjoying retirement in Kenya, right up until the moment heavily armed men burst in and try to kill him. Fending them off, he returns to London, whereupon he is confronted by an invisible man...
...and it's all downhill from there.
The rest of the movie is just a chase across the world using ridiculous CGI technology and in the company of idiotically bad representations of icons of folk law and literature, including Dorian Grey, Captain Nemo (and a super-powered Submarine thing), chemist Mina Harker (who doubles as a bloodthirsty Vampire), Tom Sawyer (a US Secret Service Agent) and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (who apparently doubles as a weedy nerd and the Incredible Hulk!).
Now that I know that these are character depictions of a comic series, I understand why this has been done, but for those who don't (like myself going into this movie), you'd think this was conceived through some kind of fever dream. Sean Connery flies off to the ends of the Earth to pursue a masked baddie, joined by a bunch of misrepresentations about as subtle as a train accident in Piccadilly Circus!
For what I saw, Sean Connery was once again the most captivating actor in the whole thing, keeping me glued to every line he said. As for the rest, the problem is they act far too 90's, not in the way people would act in the late-Victorian era. Indeed this is a bit of a personal peeve but it's quite a jarring one as you don't exactly find yourself being immersed.
Although the names of Dorian Grey, Dr. Jekyll and so forth are household names from literature, you really don't know much about them at all, it's based entirely on name recognition and that's pretty much it! So many questions, not enough answers, and I found myself being left completely uninterested from the 15 minute mark onwards.
Overall, give this one a miss. It's not a film to watch if you don't know the comic, in fact it's not a film to watch even if you do. In general it is a very, very poor display, a sadly humiliating note to end Sean Connery's career on.
Tremors II: Aftershocks (1996)
A worthy sequel!
Usually I'm always very sceptical of sequels, and I'm sure most people are, uncertain of whether the movie is going to give us new and exciting material, give us new and terrible material, or just be a retread of the original movie. Tremors 2 thankfully is in the first category, adding new characters, new story lines, a new location and a new stage in the evolution of the horrible subterranean meanies!
What's the Rye? In Mexico, an oil refinery comes under attack by the gigantic underground worms known as the Graboids, and the refinery's owner calls upon the assistance of Earl to help make them extinct once again. Although reluctant at first, Earl is penniless due to bad dealings, and thus takes up the challenge, with the help of his new friend, a taxi driver (interesting accomplice). Together they go down to Mexico and start blasting the worms to pieces, calling in the assistance of survivalist Burt Gummer when it's found that there are far more worms than they originally thought. However, things go awry when the worms suddenly start to die, with a new and even more terrifying set of creatures appearing to have burst from their carcasses!
So, the good things. Pretty much everything if I'm honest! The film takes the story in a whole new direction with the introduction of the new creatures and the new location. Although many may find the lack of Val a downgrade, Earl seems to hold the movie up well on his own, with the assistance of Burt and his Taxi Driver friend. Indeed there is a rather convenient love story thrown abruptly into the mix, but there is a grounded chemistry between the two.
The animatronics have been upgraded, and although what little CGI is used in this movie is rather ropey, it's clear a lot of effort went into this film.
Overall, I love this movie! As an action packed thriller in pursuit of bloodthirsty worms, with all the explosions, expletives and good humour of the first movie, I'd call this a faithful retelling of a fun story!
Mamma Mia! (2008)
Painful in places
I once rented this movie whilst on holiday in Austria, thinking that a mixture of some of my favourite ABBA songs with a stage show that's apparently critically acclaimed could conjure up a very entertaining movie...
...boy I was wrong!
Aside from the fact that pretty much every single ABBA song is decimated by the painful vocal talents (or lack thereof) of Pierce Brosnan and Meryl Streep, combined with a pretty standard story that, although attempts to take a few odd turns, comes off as very confusing and not very interesting.
So what's the HP Sauce? On a Greek Island, a young girl named Sophie is about to get married, but doesn't know who her father might be apart from three possible names. Sending a letter to each of them requesting they come to the island, all three of them from different backgrounds arrive, to the utter confusion of her mother and their former girlfriend, Donna, who also runs the island's hotel which isn't doing so well financially. What follows is misunderstanding after misunderstanding with the occasional cameo by former ABBA members Benny Andersson and Björn Ulvaeus.
What's the problems with this movie? The singing for starters. Although Meryl Streep can just about pull off some of the songs (and I do mean some), Pierce Brosnan sounds like a trapped cat, and the other songs aren't given much justice either, mostly having little to do with the story.
The story itself is very confused as well. Aside from being the standard A > B plot of getting the folks back together which you know they're going to do, it throws in a slew of other spontaneous romances from characters that don't even have anything to do with anything. Somehow I get the feeling that this movie was a touch confused as to where it was going, like it was stumbling through the woods without a torch, occasionally bumping into obstructive trees which are in fact mutilated ABBA songs.
On the whole, I really can't recommend it. Although some of the dance scenes can be fun to watch, the songs are horribly sung, the story is as basic as Cheddar Cheese, and the confusing and sudden romances that come in and go away again without any further reference.
Strange, very!
Tremors (1990)
My idea of a film!
When I was a kid, this used to terrify me, largely because of the fact that it's done so well. Sadly I didn't see the humour, but more seeing people being horribly killed, but that's thanks to the fact that the design of the mighty monsters is so well done and look so realistic that you could actually believe such things exist!
So what's the Linguine? Two handymen named Val and Earl live in the remote desert town (if you can call it that) of Perfection, situated in a vast valley surrounded by mountains. Unhappy with their mundane, meagre way of life they decide to head out to Las Vegas in order to raise their fortunes. Sadly, their emigration from the Valley is halted by a series of brutal murders and the destruction of the only road out. Attempting to cross the valley by horse, the murderer is found to be instead a group of gigantic underground worms that sense their prey through vibrations in the earth. With the town now their next target, Val and Earl must draw a line in the sand (pun intended) to stop these subterranean meanies before they gobble the whole town out from under them!
The best thing about this movie is the fact that it's a solid story with a gripping first half and an even more gripping second half. The first half builds up the worms, not showing them until our heroes stumble across them. After this it's a desperate battle to fight off the horrific creatures in a life and death confrontation. As mentioned, the design of the monsters is very good, and will have you believing that such things do actually exist, which is what scared me most as a kid, and the way that they operate through vibrations and sound rather than through sight or smell is very clever.
The humour is also very good, with a selection of physical and verbal humour adding a light hearted human touch to the dark situation they find themselves in.
Overall, as an adult I love this movie because it really is that perfect blend of story, horror and humour. A solid plot, some great animatronics for the worms, genuine funny characters with good strong development and humour, mixed together to create a fine homage to the B-Movies of the 1950's such as Them! and the Creature from the Black Lagoon.
The Avengers (1998)
Poor show old boy!
As I kid I used to really like this film, but as an adult I realise the problems with it are many and notable, both for plot and characters. As a child I liked the idea of there being a film with a primarily British setting, seeing an obvious cultural association, but now I realise that it's doing the exact opposite and straight up making fun of what British people aren't like any more!
So what's the ketchup? John Steed is a British Agent working for the secret Ministry. After a weather control project named Prospero is destroyed, the chief suspect and project designer, Emma Peel, is brought in, claiming her innocence. Together, both Steed and Peel are led to the home of August De Wynter, a former agent obsessed with the weather and believe that this fixation may be related to the sabotage of Prospero.
Now, the most jarring problem with this film is that it is very, very dated. The way the characters act and their traits are very much based on those of the original 1960's show, where plummy accents and established gentry ruled the waves, etc, etc. The only problem is, most people in the 1990's didn't really know about a show that stopped airing the best part of 30 years earlier, and couldn't really take seriously the fact that the last time British people spoke in such a stereotypical way was when Winston Churchill led Britain against the armies of Germany! Either way, it comes off as terribly out of place, and doesn't make the characters the least bit interesting.
Another very jarring point, for some reason London is empty! No cars, no people, no planes landing at Heathrow, nothing! As someone who lives in London, I beg to differ!
Sean Connery I give points to though, he carries off the role as the villain very well, and when he's on screen I'm glued! His line delivery, his mood changes, his general air and presence kept me gripped.
The story is pretty bog standard, stop the obvious villain baddie, the end! The effects are pretty bog standard. For some reason an invisible man and killer mechanical Bees are thrown into the mix and come off looking totally out of place, it doesn't really hold a consistent tone.
Overall, I can't really recommend it, even as a film you can just shut your brain off to. The story's bland, the characters are bland, the effects are bland, the only good thing to my mind is Sean Connery as the villain. Apart from that, give it a miss!
27 Dresses (2008)
Sadly very generic
As far as RomComs or Chick-Flicks go, this film is pretty standard, standard plot, standard characters, standard theme, it really is just a rerun of the traditional formula. But I do give it 3/10 because it isn't as bad as some, with a few genuine moments that make it really quite nice, but sadly offset by a lot of cliché and some downright mean moments.
What's the running? Jane Nichols plays a dress designer, who has made Wedding dresses and been bridesmaid at 27 weddings, sometimes having to attend more than one wedding per night. Whilst on the go she bumps into a magazine columnist who has a very cynical view on the concept of marriage. Whilst that's going on, her boss, who she's secretly got the hots for, falls in love with her sister, who pretends to be interested in the same things that he is just to win him over. And just to add insult to injury, Jane's been assigned as the wedding planner.
As mentioned, this film falls into the realms of so many clichés, with the usual sort of structure where the girl and boy meet under obscure circumstances, spend the first half of the movie saying they despise one another, find mutual points of interest in the middle and get together, only to have something that goes wrong and breaks them apart towards the third act, but they ultimately get back together in the end anyway. So it's basically just another Notting Hill, only this one has 27 Wedding Dresses instead of a multimillionaire actress falling in love with a travel bookshop owner. There's nothing surprising, no sudden turns, and you find yourself checking-out mentally.
The main problem with this movie apart from redoing the same formula, is that there are a few scenes which are just so mean spirited and downright unpleasant. I won't give them away but I find them hard to sit through because they're just so hard to watch. The acting is 'okay' I suppose, the usual sort of RomCom style where one's sarcastic and laid back whilst the other is neurotic and nervous.
I will say this though, there are a few genuine moments where the two leads seem to have a bit of fun and chemistry between them, one of which is when she's putting on the different dresses. I personally quite like this scene because it shows the characters having a bit of fun with each other like romantic couples do, rather than just being dead-set serious throughout the entire thing.
But aside from that, this film is quite dull and rather underwhelming. I can understand why people would like it though, if you just like to see some of the slapstick moments which do get a laugh out of me from time to time, but otherwise I can't really recommend it.
The Imitation Game (2014)
An Incredible Story!
I was bitterly disappointed at the BAFTA's and Oscars that this film didn't receive as many awards as it deserved, although The Theory of Everything is just as good a film. Personally, it's difficult to choose between the two because both are emotional stories about two real people who have done extraordinary things in the face of adversity.
What's the cake? The story follows Alan Turing, who due to his incredible knowledge in the field of cryptography and mathematics, is assigned to the Top Secret facility at Bletchley Park to work with a team of experts in cracking the German Enigma machine during World War II. At the same time the film follows his life after the end of the War, where he is persecuted for his homosexuality in a world where acts of same-sex relationships and romances are punishable by a prison sentence or social shame, even though the outcome of the War can largely be owed to his actions and genius.
The film is just amazing in every way, with a line up of fantastic actors and actresses who perform their parts brilliantly. Each and every moment of this movie you can take seriously because it is treated as such. The story, although I know very little about it myself, appears to follow the life of Turing to a Tee, and is filled with many emotional moments, both detrimental and uplifting. The film strongly follows his personal struggle, both in perfecting his machine, but also at hiding his true romantic feelings.
Benedict Cumberbatch plays the role of an obsessed genius perfectly, his emotions wavering with each new thought without a word being said, which keeps the film's pace fast and exciting whilst still maintaining a sense of subtly. Keira Knightley was a bit of an odd choice, although she plays her part well she does seem rather out of place, perhaps looking a bit too 90's rather than 40's to my mind. The other characters hold up strongly too, with particular praise from myself to Charles Dance, a sadly underrated actor who carries off the performance of the stern Commander Alastair Denniston absolutely perfectly!
Overall, this isn't a film, it's an experience, you get a true feeling for the world they're in, the struggles they face and genuinely feel happy when they do overcome their obstacles. Indeed the story of Alan Turing is not a happy one due to his eventual suicide in 1954, but the film has no illusion as to there being a happy ending. I won't spoil too much but I will say that the ending is both rather tragic and at the same time satisfying.
Personally, I have no complaints with this magnificent film, a true masterpiece if ever there was one, and I'd recommend it absolutely!