Reviews

It's a very poor film. Dennis Haysbert is wasted. He deserves much better. The story line is confused, difficult to follow and nonsensical. The action scenes are sub par and there is very little in the way of sniping. The music is just annoying and serves no purpose. If the Sniper series can be described as a franchise, then it lost its way when Tom Berenger left. He was a believable character (up to a point) and brought some gravitas. The cast in this film is lightweight (Haysbert apart) and wooden in their acting skills. There are also some strange accents being attempted that really don't come off. Nothing new in this film so don't bother.

Lots of mindless violence, proper vengeance, proper punishment and some great but predictable one liners. This is a very good film in its genre and none of the actors put a foot wrong. It is well written and directed and the ending is a classic. I suspect those who read the comic will applaud the return of the deaths head symbol and this is so much better than the 1989 Dolphin Lundgren film and better than the TV series. It is also better than the 2008 Ray Stevenson film, which I also like, so why do I like this version best. It is understated and does not shy away from the brutal and very violent nature of the main character. It makes no excuses and it is quite clear that the death of his family is only a catalyst to bring out his true nature. I might be overthinking it, but for me that sums up the American psyche in that on the face of it they are a friendly and caring people but put a gun in their hand and they go psycho with no regard for the Christian values they purport to follow.

I really liked this film. Mark Rylance is superb and the rest of the cast don't put a foot wrong. This film is more like a stage play as all the action takes place in a tailor's premises, with Rylance as the tailor. It's unpredictable and clever, running at a slow but sure pace. We get to know in each scene a little more about who the tailor is, and it builds into a wonderful ending. It is unusual for me to watch a film right through without pausing (it's why I rarely go to the cinema), but this held my attention from start to finish. The set is sumptuous in that it reminds me so much of the London tailors I used in my youth. Enjoy.

This is a well made documentary and, as is common with the modern trend, it relies heavily on actors playing out the story. Mostly such filmed sequences but linked by academic experts explaining the history. It works extremely well and all of the academics are mainstream and very able. Professor Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones Is particularly good and it must be a joy to study under him. Some minor irritations include some over emphasis on historically unproven incidents and not enough from Professor Ali Ansari, who, like Lllewellyn-Jones, really knows his stuff. A good series that is good on history and makes it clear where mythology is involved.

I'm afraid this is rather derivative and a bit confused, but hey, no-one made this film to get Oscars! Some of Segal's films are truly awful but this one has a decent story and there is no requirement for high quality acting. It's all about the action and giving Steve Segal and Steve Austin a chance to kick butt, which they do with great aplomb. As with all these type of films, the dialogue is often mumbled and the bad guys never hit anything when they fire their weapons. However, you know what you are going to get and I rather enjoyed it, particularly as it was part of a streaming package. In the 'old days' I would have had to rent or buy the dvd/VHS tape and been rather disappointed but when it's free, I enjoyed it.

Not my favourite Shakespeare play and it took my English ear a while to get used to the transatlantic accents but the cast does well. It is well filmed and recorded and the costumes are excellent. The cast are passionate but there was something about Romeo that didn't click with me and I can't figure out what it was. This is a difficult play to act and stage as whilst a tragedy whose ending is given in the opening by chorus, it has very funny moments. This production gets the balance just right. Whoever casts Juliet is on a hiding to nothing. The character is 14 but I cannot think of one actress of that age who could play the part. If you remember how poor the child actors in Harry Potter were, you will know what I mean. Casting Sara Farb works although I really wasn't convinced by her 'innocence'. The nurse is too shrill for my liking but these criticisms aside, the cast works well together and was clearly appreciated by the audience. The actor playing the Friar is excellent and compensates for a too pathetically played Romeo. All in all not a bad production.

Some fine performances but let down by some jerky editing and strange direction. It's difficult to give an example without writing major spoilers but suffice to say the film creaks. Although Bill Pullman gives a fine performance, he seems to go from slow and doddery to man of action. There is just so much not explained and some non sequiturs that confuse. The cinematography is excellent and the scenery is what you would expect of a western but is used in a striking way. I think there was a better film here and I wonder how much was left on the cutting room floor. However, I don't feel my time was wasted watching it but if you see it, don't expect too much.

The trouble with the story of Boudica is that so many think there is a known history of her story. However, all we really have are the writings of Tacitus which, at best, are fanciful and written to glorify his Roman employer and close relation. There is little or no archaeological evidence which means script writers can make stuff up to their hearts content.

This film goes too far. It is rubbish with a bad script and one dimensional acting. I realised there was going to be a problem in the introduction when it says Brittania is the only province resisting Roman rule. It wasn't and Rome fought constant battles in all of its provinces. The Iceni resistance was a minor skirmish compared to the wars against Gauls and Germanic to name just two.

After 20 minutes I just gave up it was so bad.

When watching a film like this, you can only marvel at the vision of the future that the writers had. Fifty years on, it makes you question whether our own vision of the future is just as limited. This has nothing to do with HG Wells other than the title. The reliable Barry Morse does his best with a poor script but some of the actors (most) seem to have been cast for their looks rather than their acting ability. A few years after the film was released, Star Wars hit our screens and sc fi changed. Better scripts, acting and production values. This film is the opposite and not surprisingly, did not do well on its release. Jack Palance, as always, hams it up and there are a few surprises but the robots are so lame, they reminded me of the puppet robots of the 50s and 60s.

A poor script that is largely acted by rank amateurs. It is not at all original and very disappointing. The lead actor has real potential but most of the cast really do need to find different careers. The poor timing with which they deliver their lines is cringeworthy. The director and the editors must accept the blame although the casting director should be put on a banned list. I got the impression that favours for friends had something to do with the appalling cast. Although formulaic, the storyline idea could have been quite entertaining if this had been made as a dark humour comedy, but it tries to be serious and fails.

Why do script writers always try to find excuses for hardened criminals. This film tells the story of some very nasty people and excuses their behaviour by focussing on their hard upbringing and environment. Trouble is, it doesn't tell the story very well. The acting is average at best with the exception of the wonderful Nicholas Ball. The prize for the worst acting goes to the actor playing Detective Scott. He uses the strangest attempt at an American accent I have ever heard but why attempt it in the first place. He is from Newcastle playing a Newcastle detective. Did I miss something. Is he supposed to be on secondment from the NYPD? Was the explainer cut? As for the rest of the story it just glosses over these real life criminals making them out to be some sort of urban heroes. They are not.

The history of cinema and TV has many examples of inexplicable accents. In this film/TV production, Donald Sutherland has one of the strangest I have ever heard. He plays Fortinbras, a small but important part as it is that characters words that close the play. His performance is the reason I have only scored it a 7 as his performance aside, this is one of the best Hamlets I have ever seen. Plummer is spot on in the title role and both Michael Caine and Robert Shaw surprised me with the excellence of their performances. This was made in 1964 and I have only just seen it. (2023). Micahael Caine is one of the few performers in still alive...and not a lot of people know that!

I suspect that some of the poor ratings are because so many American cousins don't understand self deprecation. Paul Hogan is a natural and very funny comedian and the stars that pop up along the way are also happy to take the mickey out of themselves. John Cleese as an Uber type driver is comedy gold as is Chevy Chase acting out in restaurants. The premise behind this film is superbly observed and it rattles along at a good pace. As a comment on Hollywood pretensions and shallowness it is well timed and it says something about Paul Hogan that he got so many A list celebs to appear or have their names taken in vain.

I thoroughly enjoyed the comedy and it was all pulled together nicely in the last scenes. Not sure where Hogan goes from here but I hope we see more of him.

I have enjoyed most of this 2nd series but it started to lose its way and in this episode it lost my interest, respect and patience. It's appalling. A singing Enterprise crew might have worked with decent lyrics, decent music and a talented cast. It has none of those. The premise is stupid and actors who had established themselves as new versions of known Star Trek characters, flushed all their credibility down the Ben Ghazi. Why do script writers do this? There were some indications the series was running out of ideas in the episode with cartoon characters. It sort of worked but is a very weak episode. This episode isn't just weak it is unsupported farce. Just don't bother watching it.

Without James Cosmo, I would have stopped watching after a short time. This is very badly cast and the actor playing D'Artagnan is just appalling. I loved the Richard Lester film with Michael York in the role and that version was well written, acted, directed and cast. This offering is none of those things and is just embarrassing except for James Cosmo who lifts everything he is in. He must owe the tax man to be in this rubbish. Why did the producers think a new version was needed and why did they employing a casting director who clearly hasn't a clue. The sets are ordinary and everything is clean and tidy meaning there is zero atmosphere. I just despair at how so many rubbish films are being produced these days and being forced on us by Amazon and Netflix.

This is a must see Sherlock Holmes for a number of reasons. A stellar cast deliver cracking performances. Christopher Plummer as Holmes works brilliantly and is wonderfully complemented by James Mason as Watson. The role of police commissioner is played by Anthony Quayle with just enough pomposity. The story is not a new one but told well. The script writers have written sensible and believable dialogue which is delivered with aplomb and good direction. The lighting produces echoes of the East End last seen in the great Basil Rathbone Holmes movies. The twist on the Jack the Ripper story has been told before but is bunkum. However, Plummer performs his role so well that the conclusion is powerful and believable. This film is deserving of a viewing and I recommend it.

It is clear that a lot of money was spent on this series. It would have been better spent elsewhere. The lead actor Jennifer Garner is wooden. The action scenes are not convincing and the storyline is inconsistent and unbelievable. It plays on the US belief in conspiracy theories and shadow organisations but the script is just not good enough. It is derivative, dreary, and, quite frankly boring. I just gave up halfway through episode 5 of series one. Apart from anything else, it enforces the hackneyed Hollywood myth that heroes can be tortured and beaten and within 24 hours are back to peak efficiency. It also promotes the myth that 90lb women can beat the crap out of a 250lb man. I guess it might happen occasionally but if the man is supposed to be a fit highly trained former special forces it is highly unlikely. There is a lot of this and quite frankly it is intensely annoying. Back to Garner. She is a poor actor and in this series she displays awful timing with around two facial expressions. Now that is not the end of the world - Roger Moore had the eyebrow raise and was superb. However, Garner does not exude warmth or character and however hard she worked on diet and fitness, some of that hard work should have been put into acting lessons.

This is a funny and well acted comedy ensemble piece. I am a big fan of Schwarzenegger the actor and he is on great wisecracking form. I would have scored this higher but the storyline is not original and mostly predictable. The supporting cast is excellent and it is, in the main, well written and directed. As in all such capers, the baddies are rotten shots and the goodies rarely miss. I particularly like the Dr Pfeffer character and I hope to see more of him if there is a second series. On balance, I think this is much better than some of the reviews suggest and far far better than the bad reviews. Whilst I doubt what we citizen reviewers write is very influential, please give this series a watch. You won't regret it.

Totally unoriginal and for the most part very poorly acted. You will never see any of this cast in Holyrood let alone Hollywood. The timing of the dialogue is atrocious which suggests the director and editor need a lot of help. The script doesn't help but decent actors might have done more with it. It is the penalty of low budget movies. Nobody gets paid that well and you get what you pay for. However, the script is atrocious. Adding a bit of classical music was a decision made to give the film a bit more class but it, again, is badly edited in and not at all original. Quite frankly, if Puccini, Schubert and Beethoven were still alive, they would Sue!

A good slow burner that is very dark. Martin Csokas is brooding and superb, Jim Carrey is a revelation and Charlotte Gainsbourg gives one of her best performances. It's hard to understand why so many reviewers rate it so low. I once saw a Gene Kelly film in which he played a dark character that was untypical of his usual performances and it was rated badly by critics. I can only assume that the low rate reviewers felt uncomfortable with Carrey being so far away from his usual comedic character, that they struggled with the dark and often very nasty content. However this is a film worth persevering with although I doubt it will do much for Polish tourism or trust in their law enforcement agencies. In saying that, the film could have been set in almost any country and still carry the same impact. Full marks to the Polish film industry for making it.

There is some bad miscasting in this film. Lashana Lynch is out of her depth and does not convince. Rami Malek is appalling. Daniel Craig goes through the paces but looks bored. The script is predictable. I was very disappointed when I first saw it but went back to it after a year and it was even worse than I remembered. The whole franchise is a s tired as Daniel Craig looks. He is a fine actor and wanted out before this film was made but I guess he must have been offered too good a pay day to say no.

I don't share other critics view that Ana de Armas was a good addition. Her acting in this film is average at best and I have seen better martial arts moves in a b list film. However, she looks good compared to Lashana Lynch who is so badly miscast I can only assume she has friends in high places. She just looks wrong not only for for this film but this genre. Bond films have always had a wry humour and it is missing in this film. Lynch doesn't even attempt it and Craig delivers promising lines with a world weariness that is all too apparent. Casting Malek as the villain was just plain wrong as he doesn't have the range or gravitas. His star was in the ascendancy when he was cast but he is just wrong for the part.

This franchise should be buried. Bond has had his day and trying to resurrect the franchise with Craig almost worked as Casino Royale and Skyfall were decent films. It all went wrong with Spectre and this latest addition is simply Spectre part 2 but far worse. I suppose the producers could start over as if no Bond films were ever made but far better not to bother. The producers and owners of the film rights have become too PC and it shows. If they make more Bond films, it will be pure greed on their part. The franchise has a had a good long run and this film rings a hollow death knell.

Bad acting, bad script, awful music. An unoriginal story seemingly written by ill educated fools. It has no credence as it mixes American law with a British scenario. I just don't understand why such crap is made. I watched on Amazon Prime who seem determined to serve up films that are so bad they will just make people cancel their subscriptions. The quality of the film is worse than many could get on their smartphone. None of it makes any sense. Lengthy explanations are given by actors but they make no sense. Even fantasy films have to make sense but this is a crime thriller (?) and it just doesn't hold water. Avoid.

This is an enjoyable film with all the cast believable and in good form. I love James Cosmo as Hrothgar. Not his biggest role but as always played with thought and passion. Ben Kingsley clearly enjoys his role particularly as it gives him a chance to use a new accent and a famous mythical person. Most Roman films fail to explain that the fall of Rome was as much to Rome breaking its treaty promises to the Goth defenders as it was to the Goths sacking it. This one gets it sort of right in a couple of short scenes and weaves in Arthurian mythology. The film sets a good pace and never gets boring.

All the reviewers rightly mention Lee, Price, Cushing and Carradine but all seem to forget the great Richard Todd, who plays the literary agent of Desi Arnaz Jr. Not a particularly well made film but the stellar cast and the sound effects keep it ticking along. I must admit to enjoying it even though the cast ham it up. So back to Richard Todd. A real war hero known for playing heroic soldiers, sailors and airman as well as policemen. In this film in his brief appearances he is allowed to ham it up with the best of them and pulls it off with aplomb. As always, Vincent Price, commands the screen, Christopher Lee commands the cast, and Peter Cushing just has a great time. I would have given it a higher score but for the useless acting of Arnaz and Peasgood.

Almost invulnerable ancient being brought back to life. Battles a team of superheroes. Etc etc.

The DC and Marvel universes sometimes merge and the writers of this DC film seem to have been heavily influenced by Marvel's X-Men:Apocalypse. The pierce brosnan character is similar to Dr Strange and the team around him are metas rather than mutants. It's all too predictable and the ending sets it up for a sequel. I hope they don't. It's all too derivative and all about making money. There is no art involved and, for me, the whole super hero genre should be given a rest until some real new ideas emerge.