Reviews

Of this latest Anne trilogy, Fire and Dew (daft name aside) is the best of the bunch. Even the dreadfully miscast actor playing Gilbert seems to have picked up some rudimentary acting skills since the first movie. Which is a blessing.

In this third outing, Anne waves goodbye to pokey old Avonlea and sets out for the bright lights of Charlottetown, where she spends most of her time memorising latin prose and avoiding Gilbert Blythe.

Is this new Anne (Ella Ballentine) in the same league as everyone's favourite, Megan Follows? Of course not. But she does fine. Just fine.

Note: This is also the most emotional of the three films, so beware, you may shed a tear.

I'm almost certainly not the target demographic. My days of waxing poetic about dark, artistic international films is mostly behind me. So what can I say about the Handmaiden? Well, it looked nice. Just gorgeous really. Maybe a bit dark. The nookie is... top notch nookie. No denying it. Borderline porn, truth be told. But honestly, I preferred the BBC's adaptation Fingersmith, which somehow managed to tell its story without a neon "This is Art" watermark stamped on every scene. Not my cup of soju.

Watchable Hallmark romcom featuring two likeable leads discovering that they don't hate each other as much as they thought while on a road trip across flyover usa. Winsome Natalie Hall does most of the heavy lifting, also present is Corey Sevier with his improbably white teeth. Good enough.

I presume the rather odd English title for this film, My Bossy Girl, is supposed to evoke memories of the much loved 2001 Korean romcom, My Sassy Girl. The heroine of this piece is neither bossy nor particularly sassy. She's a complicated wheelchair bound young woman, who has escaped from her frankly dreadful parents into the world of Paralympic archery. After an incident with a large stuffed bear, she falls in with a young engineer who has issues of his own. Their sweet relationship faces obstacles from all directions. Will love triumph? You'll have to watch this film in order to find out. As others have pointed out, the Amazon Prime copy of the film has subtitle sync issues. I set out to "find" another source for the film online, and was annoyed when the version I found was in an even worse state. Fortunately, I was able to manually adjust the subtitle delay on the found version. The hassle was worth it, this is a thoroughly delightful film. But, come on Amazon, fix this issue!!!

This low budget romcom is entirely watchable. It's not particularly good and it's not particularly terrible. It's a film you can watch while you eat. Or surfing the web (I did both as it streamed from Amazon Prime). The lead actress, Sydney Bakich, can act, and is frankly a bit charming. The lead actor... struggles to keep up. But he doesn't embarrass himself. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that everyone else in the cast was a friend or family member of the producers. The ending is weird. There's no getting around that fact. A solid OK.

Everything about this film is dreadful, read all the other reviews if you want to know just how dreadful it is. Instead, I want to talk about the "Art" in this film. The female lead is an artist, so from time to time we get to see her paintings and sketches, but strangely we never see them on the canvas, we just get a close-up. And when we do it becomes abundantly clear that all of her art started life as a photo and has been layered over with Photoshop filters. The filters used are easily identified and were not applied with even a hint of thought or creativity. Also, there's a fantastic moment when the talentless actor who plays the dad is drawing some Christmas art for his daughter with a lead pencil in a tiny notebook. When we see a close-up, the trees and snowmen magically appear as if drawn in coloured crayons (again by way of Adobe Photoshop). It's so blatant that you have to wonder if it was a practical joke of some kind.

It's a Hallmark film, nobody expects high art, but this one is so by the numbers, it doesn't even try to clear the bar. Generic, unfunny and so so predictable.

Give this one a pass.

While I'm risking making myself sound incredibly superficial, most of the other reviews for this film have mentioned it, so I'm just going to put it out there -- It's weird when the lead actress of a romantic comedy looks somewhat older than the woman playing her mother (and who is 22 years her senior in real life).

Normally these xmas tv movies are pretty dreadful. but this one was genuinely funny. The main cast had real comedic chops. Not your usual Christmas fair. Definitely worth a watch.

I just this moment finished watching Bokeh on Netflix. I almost didn't get past the first 10 minutes, because I couldn't understand anything the main characters were saying. Quiet voices, largely drowned out by slightly louder music. Plus several scenes where a (hard to make out) conversation was being overlaid on top of different scenes, where the characters were apparently talking to each other. It looked for all the world like the worst dubbing job in the history of cinema.

But I did finish the film and gave it seven stars. Why?

PRO TIP: -- I turned on the subtitles.

The beauty of the light and the gorgeous Icelandic scenery really drew me in. And the music I was so busy complaining about above was often mesmerising.

As for the story, it reminded me The Quiet Earth. A better film based on a much better book, but one not nearly as beautiful as Bokeh.

I watched Bokeh in a kind of daze. It's a lush diversion.

If you're paying attention, it won't take you very long to spot that this movie is a TV remake of Shop Around The Corner by way of You've Got Mail. What they've essentially done is taken the story beats of the earlier versions of the story and inserted them into their boilerplate Hallmark template. In fact, you might wonder if the "big city outsider sets out to close smaller business but instead finds love" formula, used by do many Hallmark movies, was itself lifted from You've Got Mail.

Still, I enjoyed it. Lacey Chabert is as squeakily adorable as ever. Worth a watch.

Cheesy rom-com minus the com. Fantasy premise sets the plot in motion (not necessarily a problem) but derailed by failure of the two star-crossed lovers to do or say the obvious things. I believe TV writers call this the "idiot plot" - The entire movie could be short-circuited by one or the other of them giving the other a phone number or address, or even just by following up on the numerous hints dropped all over the place. But they're morons, so they don't.

'Eh, I'm too cool to bother checking up on anything, instead I'll just mope about and say things like "I'm not wasting time on a fantasy." '

The female lead is gorgeous, but neither one of them has much in the way of charisma, nor chemistry with each other.

Skippable.

There seems to be a surprisingly high number of 8-10 star reviews here from people who have never written an IMDb review before or since. Given the very low average rating given to the film by other people, I think you may draw your own conclusions.

This is a very bad film. I'll admit it, I thought the concept was kind of cute, and I was pleased to see the actresses who played Eve and Harmony on Angel getting work, but it didn't take long for the sheer awfulness of this film to make itself known.

Acting: The leads seemed competent enough, but everyone else? Terrible.

Plot: Chock full of holes big enough to drive a truck through.

Direction: Non-existent.

Humour: Did they really think people were going to laugh? Oh boy.

Eye Candy: OK. there were some really beautiful women in this film. Not just the three main female characters, but right across the board. It was as if the producers hoped the scenery would keep male viewers so distracted they wouldn't notice how terrible everything else was. If so, they failed miserably.

In the right hands this could have been cute but darkly funny camp classic. It wasn't even close.

I first saw The Mortal Storm when I was twelve or so and it made a huge impression on me. I've wanted to re-watch ever since and today, twenty-years later, I caught it again.

Produced in 1940, Frank Morgan, James Stewart and Margaret Sullivan head a terrific cast. This is a film which makes you think and makes you angry. Yes, it's melodramatic, but so what? It's melodrama in the best sense of the word. This is emotion serving the cause of reason, casting a shining light on darkness. This is a film which still has the power to make you sweat.

I'd like to address some of the specific criticisms made in the other comments.

Firstly, the film is set in 1933. It opens with the rise to power of Hitler, and visual references to the year 1933 appear in the film (The professor's paperwork in the prison, for instance, is dated August 29, 1933). How much time passes during the film is unclear, it is certainly less than a year, so escaping to Austria WAS still an option.

Secondly, the reason the "sons" could be Nazis, despite the Professor being "Non Aryan" was that they were his step-sons, the children of his wife's first marriage. I'm fairly certain that the daughter and younger son DID belong to the Professor, although this is not made clear.

Well I liked it. It was very good... errr.... that's it!

I mean this movie has been reviewed so many times already, I doubt that anything I say is going to have much impact on you. It was intelligent, compelling and well acted. So what are you waiting for, go rent it!

Still here? Well since you're so nosey, let me just add a few more thoughts. This is one of those films that people will tell you is very confusing and difficult to follow. Remember the Usual Suspects? People will go on and on about that film. Heck, there are people out there who found Dune and Mission Impossible confusing.

When they finally "Get" an intelligent film, these people start evangelising. "I'm so smart, I got this film, my friend didn't, therefore it must be brilliant!" And by extension, they must be oh so clever too!

Well, I liked the film, I paid attention and got it first time. I haven't rewatched it. Am I some kind of wunderkind? Not by the longest shot. Have I missed some hidden depths? Its about the nature of memory and how we construct ourselves, right? Even in the shallow end of the gene pool we spotted that one.

Memento is a wonderful film that rewards attention. The film unfolds its mysteries as you watch. However the real mystery of this film is that the IMDb currently has it rated the 9th all-time greatest film. Its good, but if its in the top 100 I'll eat my hat. To the people who say it took them repeated viewings... PAY A LITTLE MORE FREAKIN' ATTENTION, WHY DON'T YOU? This is not a curate's egg, its an above-average thriller that explores a few interesting themes. Get over yourselves.

I'm not sure why I disliked this film so much. Maybe I'm too old or too male or too something. Just who was the target audience here? If you're it and you liked it, then I'm happy for you. Personally, I found it a bit of a pill. The characters were uninteresting and unlikeable, the script was just plain embarrassing and some, though not all, of the acting was uninspired. Mawkish, tedious and occasionally nauseating -- Surely there's something better on.

On a related issue: Why is it that whenever I see Chris Klein in a film I get an urge to slap him silly? Does anyone else get that?

I just watched American Psycho. Right now I'm a little confused, a little shocked and frankly worried that I'm not feeling as numb as I should be.

When the book came out, I avoided it. All of the negative publicity, and the shrink wrap plastic cover turned me off. A lot of column inches were filled analyzing the horror of American Psycho. I didn't feel like I was missing much. The release of the film largely passed me by. Tonight, well tonight I'm not sure why I watched it. It was just starting on the wide-screen movie channel as I clicked by; for some reason I stayed. And I was glad I did.

I tend to like black comedies, but it's so hard to get the tone right. For every "Heathers" there are a dozen stinkers with an over-stated ironic sensibility that you endure rather than enjoy (Did somebody mention Terry Gilliam?) I don't believe in 'anything goes' - but this is a funny film. There were moments of satirical absurdity which just boggled the mind and yet, and this is the odd part, were so damnably tasteful. They really pulled it off.

For a film based on a book notorious for its unrestrained portrayal of homicidal violence, there is something very restrained about American Psycho. We don't see a lot of actual violence. The real anger is reserved for Brett Easton Ellis' critique of Eighties excess. An easy target? Perhaps, but the real genius of the thing is that we empathise with the villain of the piece. Like Milton's Satan, the apparently amoral anti-hero is the most attractive character in the film. We like him, despite, and occasionally because of the actions we would normally condemn. That's a real achievement.

And the ending? Well, I didn't see that coming. A real surprise. I'm still not sure how we are supposed to read the story in light of that revelation. What's the point of the film if we can't trust anything we've seen? Why should we trust the ending? I don't have any answers for you. Maybe you should read the book. Maybe I should.

I wanted to like this film. Aww heck, I wanted to love it. I'm a big fan of black comedies in general. I've followed Spike Jonzes career for years, John Cusack is one of my favourite actors and Cameron Diaz... Well let's just say that my feelings towards Cameron Diaz are pretty much the same as every other hetrosexual male's. So this should have been a slam dunk. I liked the concept of the film, the reviews were glowing, I was receptive, pumped and primed.

Then I saw the film...

And it did suck. Balls.

Huge great hairy balls of suckiness.

There was not a single character I felt any affinity to. I found the situations contrived and pointless. The ideas explored were either bland or annoying. The acting was over the top and all I was left with was an uncomfortable desire to slap everyone involved.

Was my reaction a little extreme? Perhaps, but I don't feel too bad, given that I seem to be in the minority here. Everyone appears to love this film. People go on and on about it, so if I've missed the point, well, my opinions are hardly going to drown out the true believers. But what if I'm right and they're the ones who are wrong? What if there are good, film-loving folks who are just embarassed to admit they don't get it? What if, as I suspect is true, there are vast hordes of BEING JOHN MALKOVICH haters out there, just waiting for someone to tell them that it's OK not to like this film?

Rise up, Rise Up! You have nothing to lose but your pretensions!

I don't know, maybe I'm the only person in the world who didn't enjoy The Full Monty. Perhaps there's something wrong with me, but I hated it. So when I was dragged into the cinema to see this follow-up by the same director, I went kicking and screaming. True, I knew absolutely nothing about the film, had not seen a review and sure, it starred the always funny James "Cold Feet" Nesbitt and the delectable Olivia "Rushmore" Williams, but I was determined to loathe every agonising moment.

A few minutes in, a funny things started to happen. Something odd was happening in my throat and in my chest. That sensation in my chest... that strange feeling... What was it? No, I wasn't bringing up bile. It wasn't pain; It was... it was... No, it couldn't be. It was laughter! Yes, I was laughing. The film was funny and entertaining and charming and the corny, feel good ending left me with a warn glow.

Eewwww...

They say the great thing about Shakespeare's work is that it is so open to interpretation. Every director can bring his or her fresh eyes to a play and make it new. Even so, I think we are obliged to stay true to the basic tennents of the text. Are the works of Jane Austen as open to interpretation? Maybe, but I doubt it; Certainly not if MANSFIELD PARK is anything to go by.

MANSFIELD was always my favourite of Austen's six novels. Many modern critics, while not denying its basic greatness, have problems with the book. Many find FANNY PRICE unlikeable, many find her judgemental, and feel that her Stoic, Augustan approach is hard to relate to. Stand-by, do nothing, and eventually he'll see the error of his ways and come to love you. Not very modern, is it?

OK, so if you don't like the main character, if you don't like what she has to say, then what do you do? Look for other aspects of the story you can relate to. In recent years some critics have chosen to see MANSFIELD PARK in Post-Imperial terms, as a critique of Slavery. After all, the family's wealth is based on plantations in Antiga, which were run by slaves. Is that what the book's about? Is it? I don't know. I think the evidence is a little slim, but who am I to deny the possibility? Maybe it plays a part in the subtext of the novel.

So, I'm a modern script-writer who doesn't like the novel, it's pre-occupations or even Fanny Price. What do I do? I completely re-write the story to take a possible minor sub-text (slavery) and turn it in to the driving narrative force. I then take smart as a whippet, stubborn yet passive Fanny and turn her into a ballsy version of Bridget Jones. With an attitude. I then string together a couple of scenes from the book with a few invented bridging scenes to advance the romance. Et Voila! I have a completely different story!

I don't know what this film is, but it isn't Mansfield Park. Enjoy it on its own terms, but don't ever get the idea that your watching Austen on the screen. But, jeeze. I think that if you're going to adapt a novel for the screen, you ought to at least like the source material; Otherwise, what's the point? If you don't like the main character, you shouldn't be able to completely re-invent her. Or if you do, you should have the decency to be a little ashamed.

Most of the reviews are pretty negative, but I have to admit that I rather enjoyed this piece of hokum. Someone compared the film to the Hornblower stories and I have to agree, but I'll go one step further and suggest that the Hornblower influence comes via David Feintuch's Nicholas Seafort books, the first of which, Midshipman's Hope, must have appeared a year or so before this film.

The parallels are almost too striking. Junior Officers on first cruise in space, Senior officers killed in sneak attack, one hero becomes captain, sense of honour forces him to execute traitor, overcomes incredible odds, defeats enemy, etc, etc, etc. Leaving aside the hokey teen telemovie elements, this film contains a lot of the classic story elements that you often find the best space operas but rarely find in effects-driven, high-concept, Trek inspired Sci-fi films we are forced to contend with.

Go on, give it chance -- A guilty pleasure.

I missed the end of this film! I'm so upset. Now I'll never know if Olive succeeded in saving Christmas. There I was, Christmas Eve, sitting on the couch, flicking channels, waiting for my ride to turn up. A long night of drinking and general carousing awaited. Suddenly I was tuned into Channel 4 and watching a streetwise penguin trying to sell fake designer watches to a talking dog. Well, it happens every day, doesn't it?

So anyway, I could talk about plot, like that matters, and I could go on about how funny it was, or how heart warming, but would you really care? Would you? Let me just say this, I was utterly charmed the gloriously flat CGI characters in a totally unique 3D universe. And despite what some of the other reviewers have said, I found Drew Barrymore's characterisation absolutely perfect.

Barrymore's squeaky little confused voice was the delightful embodiment of this dopey, self-deluding dog. A dog who manages to convince herself that Santa, after a minor Pre-Christmas Reindeer incident, was relying on 'Olive, the Other Reindeer' and NOT the 'all of the other reindeer' he actually refers to.

How could you not love this film?

Just thinking about it now, I feel certain that Olive must have helped Santa save Christmas. If she didn't, where did all those presents come from this morning? I was certainly in no fit state to help out.

I knew nothing about this film before I sent to see it. I had a couple of hours to fill in and it was just about to start, so... Well, within minutes of the opening, I knew I'd made mistake. This was precisely the sort of film I abhore. I contemplated walking out, but how could I do it without being seen? Without looking like a fool? So I settled back and resolved to hate She's all that! Except something unexpected happened. I had few hopes of even keeping down my popcorn, but suddenly I found myself liking it. The female lead was implausably gorgeous to ever fool anyone with the ugly duckling act, but that wasn't the point. This is a mildly amusing, almost charming film, with attractive stars and an entertaining script. The bad guys were annoying and laughable, the good guys were sweet and misguided. They overcame entertaining obstacles to find true love and redemption. What's not to like?

I knew nothing about this film before I rented it. I wish that there had been someone to take me by the hand; to warn me off. So now I'm here now for the rest of you. Don't rent this film. Slight redemption comes in the form of the two female leads, Lena Headey & Penelope Cruz. They are both simply exquisite -- but beauty does not a film make.