Reviews

31 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
3/10
Death on the Style
3 April 2021
With such a cast you'd think this would be a great picture. And the Nile at Luxor, Karnak, Abu Simbel is just the most amazing location for a movie. Five years after this movie I spent a month in Egypt and to the locations in the movie.. And in another five years later I went to India. One thing I've never seen in Egypt is a boat run by an Indian. Or an Egyptian sailing a boat on the Ganges. How in the hell did this movie get made with an Indian speaking Egyptian? Just that was enough to relegate this to the standards of a TV movie. Or was it a joke?
5 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rollerball (1975)
10/10
Tremendous and so underrated.
8 October 2011
I can't understand why this film only has 6.5 stars. It really is an incredible piece of film. It has everything and it is so unique. The action sequences are superb, I mean, like you're really THERE. Absolutely riveting. The acting is brilliant. The story is really great and really has so much to say and is so relevant today like with MonSATAN taking over the world's food supply. Just as a piece of social commentary it excels. I'm lost for words really. Just that this film really ought to be right up there with the all time greats with an 8 point something rating. I guess people either don't get it or they need to be TOLD it's great before it becomes great for them. Shame.
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Depressing if you don't want to watch a 2 hour advert for LSD
5 October 2011
I read Tom Wolfe's novel and was pretty impressed. I watched this movie and wasn't. In the novel the pranksters have a clear underlying philosophy to their antics and as such mark an important historical beginning of the 60's youth counterculture. In the novel there is a recurring theme railing against the crass materialism of America at the time and a continuation of the artistic beat movement of the 50's. In the movie we're pretty much simply given an advert for LSD. As I understood it drugs and sex were used as a MEANS to a greater understanding and a new philosophy of life. But what we witness in this film is simply irresponsible self gratification and mindless hedonism which I guess is what eventually burnt the 60's out. Maybe Wolfe made it all up and this film represents the reality? If so it was a big disappointment for me. I'm with Kerouac on this one. I'd share a beer with him on that sofa in New York and have a good moan about what a bunch of irritating,vain, stupid,shallow, self indulgent pricks they all were.
22 out of 83 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Depressing film
21 March 2011
This film sucks in so many ways. As an Englishman I find this self conscious stiff upper lip acting style of Mills and his cohorts utterly embarrassing and stupid. That people seem to like this cartoonish drivel only makes it even worse especially when you see real adult English people trying to imitate it in real life. Then in this film we have the heroising of a man who led an expedition which was by all accounts a consummate failure. Why this perverse English need to make a hero out of a loser? Not only did Scott lose the race but all the loss of life, and suffering including the death of horses and dogs for what? Just to try to be the first person to stand on a bit of ice which is the south pole. Why? To satisfy a massive ego. You think it would all be forgotten as an embarrassing mistake in English history. But no. Back when I was young my school was divided up into four 'houses' named after famous explorers: Lawrence, Livingstone, Rhodes and Scott. I was in Scott. Ugh! The shame of it.
7 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Kolya (1996)
6/10
Worth watching but keep the fast forward near.
28 December 2010
Koyla started out full of promise and had my full attention in the beginning. There's a fair bit of suspense and fun as we try to work out who our man is and how his womanising is going to turn out. There's a fair bit of humour and nice cinematography and you get a nice feel for the country. But then after Kolya the boy turns up it starts to get a bit slushy. There are some nice tender moments but for me it all got too much and you need some drama to balance that out. Only when our man is being interrogated do we get any further suspense. But from then on it's just more of the same, nice filming, child caring and 'sweet' moments but it all got too much for me after a while and I began tuning out. The main actor didn't really express much range of emotion either and he and the film just began to come off as a bit one dimensional as the film dragged to its predictable conclusion.
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Into the Wild (2007)
1/10
Unbelievable and shallow as all hell!!
28 November 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This was a very unsatisfying movie. It starts out with promise and spectacularly fails to deliver . Where to start? The basic premise of a chap going off to live alone in the wild with adventures all along the way is a good one. But nothing really interesting or compelling ever happens in this. The best thing about travelling and wandering about the world is all the interesting and unusual characters you meet along the way. But I can't describe the tedious, one dimensional humourless dullards our 'hero' meets. The long drawn out 'deep' interactions they have about nothing except how sad and unhappy their lives are. All so full of pain.Deep people aren't full of pain. Deep people are people with something to say. The scenery was nice though and there was some camera work going on but that can't make up for flat characters, a dead script, lack of a cohesive storyline that develops (this was just a collage of fragments of happenings strung together going everywhere but nowhere) bad acting and most of all any real philosophical idea behind it. After all, people take off into the wild alone for deep reasons regarding their relationship to modern society not just because they had a tiff with their parents and like eating squirrels. There was a point where some tensions develop in the killing of a big bull thing and you expected that our boy was becoming a man with all the challenges. But then it took a serious dive when he goes back to the hippies and meets a very pretty but incredibly shallow girl and quickly reverts back to being a child again. From then on it never picks up and draws out slowly and interminably to a sad ending. I've said enough. The fact that so many think this worth and 8 rating just shows how shallow and dumb most people are. Perhaps I should go find myself a nice shack in the woods of Montana .....................
40 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
All That Jazz (1979)
1/10
Creepy and macabre
13 November 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This is pretty bad. All That Jazz starts off fairly well and I like tales of drink and drugs and fornicating anti heroes but the film falls apart on so many levels. First of all, Roy Scheider is a good actor but he's really miscast in this. Despite being really watchable he just doesn't cut it as a philandering drinking pill popper. He's just too straight a guy. But the worst part about this film is it takes a terrific dive about three quarters the way through when an endless death scene is played out between a hospital and a staged dance routine. This didn't work at all. You could see what the director was trying to do but it isn't funny or dark comedy or serious or anything at all. All you end up with is something entirely macabre and cringeworthy. After having watched so far I felt compelled to stay to the end with each last minute dragging out painfully with the film never seeming to end. Every second I found myself wishing our hero would die quickly and put me out of my misery. Death, dying, smoking, hospitals, coughing, blood, open heart surgery and dancing troupes in costumes covered in veins don't do it for me. Awful.
10 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Exam (2009)
1/10
Don't bother.
4 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
There's only one reason to watch this film and that's to see what happens at the end. There are hundreds of reasons why not to watch it: dodgy premises, implausibility, wooden script, a cast of 'characters' who have no character at all bar Mr White who has his moments. There's also an utter lack of humour and acting that you're more likely to find at Hackney council's Wednesday adult evening workshop class. Man, that bespectacled guy was a real cringe to watch.

Implausibility can be OK in a film if it's engaging but this takes a turn for the worse about half way through when our unlikeable characters turn brutal and sadistic and begin a fest of gratuitous violence towards each other and violently/sexually assaulting one of the women. I can't believe some of the good reviews for this trash. Is that really what people want to see in a film? Not me. This tries to pass itself off as arty smarty but like other films of its ilk it's ultimately just unimaginative, depressing and meaningless. And if you do get hooked in to the end you're gonna be very disappointed with the 'twist'.

My advice? Don't bother.
30 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Near Dark (1987)
10/10
Not THAT bad!
1 August 2010
This movie wasn't all that bad really. I can see why people didn't like it but usually those who give one star reviews often pick technical issues as their reasons like 'oh that could never happen in reality' or certain continuity flaws and the like. I mean, they're watching a FILM for God's sakes! They miss the point entirely IMHO. Films like this aren't meant to be taken too seriously. I thought it was pretty bloody funny in places and would've been a good film to take a date to. Yeah, it did drag in places but Paxton was great and you could do worse than I did and that was kill a couple of boring hours of the Sunday afternoon void with this and a couple of cans of Stella.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2081 (2009)
1/10
Nihilistic trash.
18 June 2010
This film left me with a sick feeling. If you enjoy the experience of a so called artist being sick on your face by all means watch it. Its only saving grace is it doesn't last too long and then you can go for a walk or something to clear your mind. I'm sure there are people out there will think this is deep, meaningful, artistic and profound but I suspect they wouldn't know profound if it hit them in the face. Of course there are plenty of 'messages' in here delivered without a trace of irony. They're the bleak, nihilistic, humourless, hopeless, depressing one's we see all too much on the screen these days. Who funds this crap? If you want to feel excited and empowered, have your imagination stimulated, be surprised and entertained I'd look elsewhere if I were you.
18 out of 137 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Crap unbelievable story.
3 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
It's hard to review this because it's so good and so bad at once. As the forerunner of the Bicycle Thief it has all the same realist filming and it's a delight to watch in slow paced and close up the Italy of the 1940's. The music's nice and the various shots are quite arty but not pretentious but then the bad: what kind of a story was THAT? SPOILER ALERT! It's basically about a child whose Mum keeps popping off with her lover. She then keeps popping back and we get the jilted husband looking all serious and mean and hurt. Various scenes of the kid with a crumpled sad face and you begin thinking WTF?!! In the end she buggers off with the lover the father dumps the kid and goes and tops himself!! At that point i just lost it and started laughing in the place you're supposed to cry in it was all so ridiculous and absurd and melodramatic. So all in all a watchable film but there's no realism or even neorealism in this story at all. Unbelievable.
4 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Shoeshine (1946)
3/10
Foul play Italian style
30 May 2010
After watching The Bicycle Thief and Umberto D and having been so impressed by those films I secured a copy of this. Unfortunately, this fell way short of those other two both in style and content. Why this has received such praise is beyond me. Unlike the former films which are slow paced, meditative and draw you in this just rockets along at a pace and I found it hard to follow. The dialogue comes at you like machine gun fire and I found it really hard to read the subtitles fast enough to keep pace with the story. The acting was totally unconvincing too. It reminded one of more of the dramatic hammy renditions given by Italian football players falling down in phony pain trying to convince the ref to give a free kick. I wasn't convinced at all. It left me cold.
11 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Idiocracy (2006)
5/10
Hey dude, where's my oligarchy?
19 May 2010
Not a bad movie to while away some time and you might find yourself tittering here and there. My problem with the film is that it starts with an interesting premise and takes it absolutely nowhere except dumb laughs and a feel good ending. One big flaw is that there's no way such dumb people could still have functioning machines, food, agriculture, cars, etc. and behave the way they do. There's little extrapolation from the present into the future as in most dystopian futures like 1984, Brave New World etc . As social satire it falls short because there's no oligarchy represented here at all as the cause of the dumbing down which would've lent an edge to it all. We are therefore supposed to believe that it's all happening by accident when a much darker comedy reflecting reality could've been developed and Idiocracy would likely have become the cult classic it was supposed to be.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Eagle Eye (2008)
1/10
A little peck on the cheek of a film.
30 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Not a bad movie in the sense you can waste a bit of time and not feel too bad about it. I disliked it though, not for the same reasons as most: trite plot, stolen ideas, plot holes, etc because it's still a bit racy but more for the completely unengaging lead actors. Our heroine just comes across as a cold bitch and our hero as a sad wimp. At one point he throws a hissy fit and stomps out the car and our lady has to try and cajole him back to carry on driving. This kind of role reversal is embarrassing and cringeworthy at best. Neither leads have any character or personality and both are utterly humourless, one dimensional and nothing develops between them. Our great suspense moment is whether our puppy dog hero will get a good snog at the end and guess what?>>>>>>>>>>>.......he doesn't!!! Pathetic. So that kinda sums up the film. A little peck on the cheek. A kind of thanks for trying but no thanks.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Don't Bogart that joint, Jesus.
27 March 2010
I really wanted to enjoy this film and came to it really willing it to be good. As the movie progressed though, my enthusiasm just got eroded bit by bit and I really struggled to make it through to the end. The biggest let down is that the film showed very little of the gospel that Jesus preached and so for newcomers you really don't get a sense of what it's all about. There were a few lame flashbacks tacked on here and there but I imagine Jesus to have been a very passionate guy and there it is in the title. But what we get here is a kind of watered down version who in most scenes looks half stoned like he'd had a few hits on the crew's bong before each take. What we end up with is a crucifixion by numbers. A melodramatic, docudrama saturated with gratuitous violence and little else. Long, slow, drearily nihilistic and brutal scenes are played out with little hope or sense. This was a man of incredible faith and conviction supposedly enduring hell for us but the movie hardly gets that point across at all. Some of the acting wasn't bad though so I suppose we can give it a 3.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
How many fingers? 4 or 5?
11 March 2010
I got a hold of this because 1984 is a great book and this promised to reaffirm a truth that most of the thinking public are aware of and that is the world is rapidly assuming the basic ideas contained within the novel. Here it starts of dealing mainly with the media and as Orwell pointed out that truth can be manipulated and by extension the public too. But here we have someone like Micheal Moore standing up there and you have controlled opposition straight off the bat. It doesn't matter how they try to disguise themselves but a socialist is a socialist is a socialist is a socialist whatever they do or say or try to represent themselves as anything else. All you end up with is cognitive dissonance. You can't put lipstick on a pig. It still smells. So here, together with Kucinich and others you have the lefties railing against a problem which is a lefty problem! Marxist ideology masquerading as an opposition to something which is transparently a product of Marxist ideology. Whether this lot do this consciously or not is open to debate. Perhaps someone like Moore is just a useful idiot? Who knows. But one thing is sure: two wrongs don't make a right. Orwell wrote his book as a consequence of his disillusionment with socialism and portrayed the totalitarianism that would inevitably ensue. Half baked socialists like Moore, Kucinich, etc speaking out against their own ideology is simply ridiculous and absurd. This film is holding up 4 fingers and everyone is saying there are 5.
6 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Two desperate hours
12 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I can't really see the point of this film. There doesn't appear to be any reason for its existence. Some criminals take over a house with an annoying family for hostage and from there it goes nowhere at all. You couldn't add any spoilers for this film because there's nothing to spoil. Because nothing actually happens!! The acting is fairly good but it's all wasted really as the poor actors have nothing to work with and just go round and around repeating themselves. So this little 'classic' just spins its wheels for nearly two aptly named desperate hours. Its worth three stars simply because it's a period piece but you spend most of your time looking at the cool cars and the clothes, your mind wandering. Humphrey Bogart does Humphrey Bogart with no surprises at all and although he's enjoyable to watch you just get bored because he's the same in just about every movie you've ever seen him in. I'd pass on this one if I were you.
11 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Ashamed to be British
28 January 2010
What is it with Monty Python is supposed to be so good? Ever since the '70's and I watched it on TV everyone I've ever known raves about it. I just don't get it. I think people who like it sort of think it's 'intelligent humour'. Does it flatter them? Thing is, it's neither intelligent or funny. It's so unfunny. It's puerile and silly. I keep coming back to it like this piece of boredom, 'The Meaning Of Life', thinking I may have missed something but am left cold again and again each time. It's a childish humour I suppose is a bit 'in' with people who went to Oxford and Cambridge but means nothing to real people. Thing is, John Cleese was so good in Fawlty Towers and that really was funny and intelligent. I find it really snobby too and is so liberally awash in 'We're so English and eccentric aren't we?' that as an Englishman I feel utterly embarrassed to think that foreigners have to watch this. It's like watching someone masturbate. Like in the film itself where John Cleese has sex in front of a class. Ugh!! There has to be something wrong with you to find that funny or interesting.
18 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rambo (2008)
6/10
Don't recommend a restaurant and then complain about the food.
23 January 2010
Not a bad movie if you're in the right mood. It belongs along with the Die Hard series and if you're a bit fed up, tired and don't want to think too much just kick back and watch someone else go around doing a lot of shooting and swearing looking fed up too it's pretty good. If you want good plot, fine acting, script, story twists and philosophical depth I wouldn't bother. Sounds obvious but it's amazing all the one star reviews that complain about the latter missing. From a Rambo film for God's sakes!!! That's a bit like going to an Indian restaurant and moaning about the spicy food. Mind you after watching about the hundredth body sawn off spewing blood from machine gun fire it got a bit silly to say the least.
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Millennium (1989)
8/10
Good, entertaining film, Worth watching.
9 January 2010
I usually only rate films when they disappoint but this one was pretty good and only got a 5 rating which was undeserved. It's not a '10' film but you could do much worse than spend a bit of time watching this. It makes no pretence to be a great film and is all the better for it. The premise is interesting, the acting is good, and the whole film has a light comedic touch which lets you know it's not taking itself too seriously. Cheryl Ladd is marvellous and delicious! I don't like 'romantic' scenes in films. I find them embarrassing and I close my eyes or go to the bathroom or make a cup of tea in those parts. Here though the dynamic between Kristofferson and Ladd on their date is really good, original and funny. This is a scifi film with lots of character and beats the hell out of contemporary 'serious' politically correct sci fi like Avatar for example.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Thou shalt not kill
3 January 2010
Watching this I kept thinking 'oh this is really great, Eastwood is great, the girl is excellent,,,.........etc etc' Then suddenly it was if someone pulled the plug on the film and it sunk to an absolute crummy dead end around half an hour before the finish. It's hard these days to watch any Hollywood film without realising you're being propagandised somehow. Some rich and powerful people want the power of life and death over you and they're using the media as a way to bring the subject of euthanasia up in order to familiarise you with the concept that killing is OK under certain circumstances. I've seen loads of articles recently in the news such as 'The case for killing Granny' and others. Sorry, but killing is killing is killing and thou should not kill. End of. So they serve up the 'exception' to the rule ie. in this case it's a merciful thing to do. But as we all know and especially alcoholics know, the exception to the rule can rapidly become the rule. Before you know it they'll be popping you off 'cause your insurance ran out just like they pop off unborn babies for free 'cause you don't want the hassle of looking after one. Hell, life is cheap these days didn't you know? Also they brought the Church in on this one to get the Christians on board too. Nothing Hollywood puts out these days is just innocent entertainment. It all has a political message. They want your mind. And what was the dumb white boy there for? 'Oh we're all fighters and it's the spirit of fighting that counts even if you're really a sorry stupid loser.'= be a loser and let us have control over you. Apart from anything else these subjects do not make good drama. Maybe the key to realising the propaganda part is being pushed is to know when you're feeling bored suddenly. Another intelligence insult. Another one for the recycle bin.
3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The red's are still coming.
26 December 2009
I notice in some of the other reviews that people were confused in that although they felt repulsed by it, this film made no sense to them. I think this film has a clear message. It's very insulting. It says that you are nothing more than a pleasure seeking animal and that life is just a meaningless array of superficialities. That good and evil don't really exist and ethics don't really exist and 'do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law'. A new kind of American 'freedom' if you like. It is telling you that the de-moralisation of America and the Western world is about complete. This message is carefully embedded within a fantastic southern country rock soundtrack, cool retro clothes, enhanced colour, actors with character faces, and obvious references to the American 'Dream' with great U.S. scenery replete with open highways and skies, deserts, etc. This is classic communist style subversion. And you thought McCarthy was a nut! No doubt Zombie ( what kind of idiot has a name like 'Zombie', anyways? ) has been handsomely paid and financed to put out this crap. One can only hope that when the Second American war of Independence begins that the citizens will point their second amendment right at the right enemies of the nation like Zombie and his ilk and not play out the drama in this film by taking out their frustration by senselessly torturing and ripping each other apart.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Searchers (1956)
1/10
The Searchers are lurcher's.
13 December 2009
Oh dear not another one. I was bored, it's Sunday and sat down really looking forward to this supposedly great western to fill the evening void. Maybe I'm not qualified to comment fully as I didn't make it past half an hour. I figure if a film hasn't grabbed me by then it probably won't get any better. Usually a rubbish film will grab you then go downhill but this.......... well, first off I'm English and even I know that those funny things sticking out the earth don't come from Texas they're somewhere in Utah. That's the first insult. It may be great scenery but great scenery a great film it doth not make. And there's nothing glorious about glorious Technicolor either. It's like being hit on the head with a sledgehammer. Then, oh I dunno just that dumb acting from that time, those stupid children full of beans and cockadoodle dandy acting just irritate the hell out of me as if lots of energy will make up for real acting. Embarrassing. The story just plods along and doesn't build any tension whatsoever with a lot of hammy acting by our stars more fit for a TV show. Then it's just cliché after cliché and the end result is wishing the maker of this film would stop insulting my intelligence and pi** off. I disliked John Wayne as a small boy because I thought he was boring. I think he's boring now. If you wanna watch a good Western with interest and real characters, story development, tension and drama that sucks you in watch Unforgiven. I'll never forgive this pile of dross.
18 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Heat (1995)
Tick Tock Tick Tock Tick Tock.......................
27 November 2009
Oh mama! What a drag this film is. I could only stomach around an hour before I had to switch this off. You just don't get drawn in and it's like being at work watching the clock waiting for 5pm. Sorry but I think Robert DeNiro is the most overrated actor in history. He was great once in a film called Taxi Driver and been living off of that ever since. Not to say he hasn't been in some good films but they were good in spite of not because of him. He is the dullest, flattest, clichéd, wooden, self conscious, one dimensional actor ever. For some reason he's been MADE 'great' and now everyone just repeats what they've been told. Pacino is a great actor but in this (probably his worst outing) he over acts and you constantly feel you're watching Al Pacino. I'm not a film maker and so it's hard to say why this doesn't work but it doesn't. Something to do with an inability to empathise with any of it. It's drama by numbers. In the end you're just left cold.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Don't believe the hype.
15 November 2009
I can't believe this is rated at 8.5. Whatsamatter wiv everyone? Well, we know what the matter is and that is the non thinking response of received ideas, IE. 'this is black and white, this is old, there is a famous actor in it and some famous director who's also renown for something or other I've no idea what but his name is familiar and therefore it must be good, mustn't it?' Personally, I'm not interested in any famous this and that or age or whatever. I wish to be entertained. This doesn't do it. The film starts off with a little promise and you expect to be drawn into a drama full of intrigue and the human condition with a lot of philosophy and conflict. What we actually get is a 2 dimensional 'Boys Own' style clichéd drivel all fragmented plot lines going nowhere. It felt as if the script was written as they went along and hardly any of it seemed to make any sense. There was no drama, just endless amounts of bad acting where the famous actor self consciously and unprofessionally keeps looking at the camera by accident. Basically this film is written for a five year old and insults your intelligence. 2 stars for period nostalgia and the clothes. I'd pass on it if I were you.
11 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed