The shills are out in force for this , frankly forgettable, movie. There seems to be a constant stream of 10/10 reviews which read as though the poster hasn't even seen the film.
The film looks good but the plot and character motivations don't make much sense in the face of anything other than casual scrutiny.
That said I did enjoy the first act. If the rest of the film had continued in that tone it would have undoubtedly earned a higher score for me.
The second act is very pedestrian and drags,but the film falls apart in the denouement.
Has zero rewatch potential. Wait for it on TV or streaming.
Reviews
50 Reviews
Shed of the Dead
(2019)
cheap, lazy, derivative and boring
2 June 2019
There is little good to say about this film. Shoehorning a load of aging z-list horror people into a lazy script that thinks casual misogyny is funny is never going to be entertaining.
The script is dire, the acting meh and the entire thing looks cheap.
The main feeling I had while watching this was of vague embarrassment, like watching a bad comedian fail on stage. The humour is like that of a schoolboy who hasn't yet lost his virginity..stupid and facile.
Emily Booth is too long in the tooth for this kind of role nowadays.
Captain Marvel
(2019)
beige wallpaper
14 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I am not the biggest superhero film fan in the World, but I've seen most of them on DVD. I catch a few at the cinema, but this is the first one I've totally regretted spending the money on.
The writing and pacing of the film is off, the title character's " journey" is completely uninvolving. I never once cared about the heroine of this movie or what happens to them. There are moments when we should feel for Captain Marvel but they just fall flat. The relationship between Carol Danvers and her best friend is nothing.
Brie Larson is miscast. She looks bored in every scene that she is in. I am told that she is a talented actress , and that may well be true, but I've only ever seen her in King Kong: Skull Island and this film and she is terrible in both of them.
Worst of all, for a movie of this type, Larson is a charisma vacuum. She doesn't take the audience with her at all.
The character is also just too powerful. When , at the end of the film, she has to fight and destroy her former friends she doesn't seem to feel anything as she effortlessly wipes them out. It's like playing a video game in cheat mode, there is no real difficulty, you just keep shooting until you win.
It's a shame because some elements really work. The villain, played wonderfully by Ben Mendehlson ( spelling?) is excellent and Samuel Jackson and Clark Gregg both shine. I was reminded of how much I missed Gregg's character ( I don't watch the TV show in which he appears).
The humour doesn't work because Brie Larson can't do comedy.
Wait for the DVD
The Predator
(2018)
The Batman and Robin of the Predator series
29 September 2018
How hard is it to understand the appeal of the original "Predator"? A simple premise of an unstoppable killing machine with high tech weaponry who hunts humans for sport.
Shane Black has written a complete mockery of the original film, which contradicts the previous entries in the series. This is worse writing than Rian Johnson ( and I don't say that lightly).
The Meg
(2018)
I was bored
12 August 2018
From the beginning I felt that this movie could have turned out going either way. I was intrigued enough to read the first of the books that the film is based upon, and while the book is not great, it's a diverting page turner.
The movie started to go wrong when Jason Statham was cast. I usually like his films but he is limited as an actor and he is miscast here.
The rest of the cast are forgettable and the plot is stupid. A couple of sequences are exciting , some fall flat, and the CGI is variable.
Wait for this one on dvd
Crown Prosecutor
(1995– )
disappointing
28 July 2018
This was a surprisingly low budget vehicle for Michael Praed's return to British TV.
Praed was billed as the star in the hope that his female fans would make the show a success, but the reality was that there was an ensemble cast.
Praed was OK, Tom Chadbon was dependable as ever but Paris Jefferson was literally the worst actress that I have ever seen. Every storyline given to her character was utterly wasted as she had zero talent to enact it.
The show had the production values ( and presumably budget) of an afternoon drama like Crown Court, but was of much lower quality.
Very few remember it now.
Marcella
(2016–2021)
utterly pointless
10 April 2018
I haven't seen the first series and my review is based completely on series 2.
I think it became clear about halfway through the series that the writers didn't know what they were doing and had no ending. For some reason I continued to watch in a kind of fascinated horror to see if the series would get any better. It didn't.
Characters were added halfway through the show who served no purpose ( especially the badly acted lesbian couple who were wanting a child) and about 75% of each episode seemed to be padding or red herrings.
I don't think many will be satisfied that so few storylines have been resolved . It might be possible that the makers will attempt a series 3. If they do I won't be watching.
Star Trek: Discovery
(2017–2024)
An STD you don't watch to catch
29 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I was bitterly, bitterly disappointed with Star Trek:Discovery. The main reason for this is not the revamped aesthetics ( aside from the redesigned Klingons I had no issue with the designs), nor even the tonal problems ( although the supposedly gritty tone might get wearing after a few episodes).
The show's script is a bit of a mess- but it's a pilot and pilot episode scripts are often poor.
The main problem with this series is the main character, Michael Burnham, played by Sonequa Martin Green is completely unsympathetic. She is arrogant, unlikable and poorly acted.
Her behaviour makes no sense.It contradicts everything that we know about the Federation , the Vulcans and Spock's family.
Spock's family? yes Michael is Spock's human sister. This makes a mockery of the Spock character. Surely he would have more understanding of human nature if he had grown up with a human sister.
The other problem is that this pilot seems redundant. Pilots usually serve to introduce characters but at the end of the pilot most of the characters are dead and the starship Shenzou is abandoned.
Presumably we will need to introduce the titular ship the Discovery in a later episode.
Technically the series seems excellent with the CGI quite striking but Star Trek is not all about special effects.
If you want to see a series reflecting Gene Roddenberry's future then watch the Orville.
The show's script is a bit of a mess- but it's a pilot and pilot episode scripts are often poor.
The main problem with this series is the main character, Michael Burnham, played by Sonequa Martin Green is completely unsympathetic. She is arrogant, unlikable and poorly acted.
Her behaviour makes no sense.It contradicts everything that we know about the Federation , the Vulcans and Spock's family.
Spock's family? yes Michael is Spock's human sister. This makes a mockery of the Spock character. Surely he would have more understanding of human nature if he had grown up with a human sister.
The other problem is that this pilot seems redundant. Pilots usually serve to introduce characters but at the end of the pilot most of the characters are dead and the starship Shenzou is abandoned.
Presumably we will need to introduce the titular ship the Discovery in a later episode.
Technically the series seems excellent with the CGI quite striking but Star Trek is not all about special effects.
If you want to see a series reflecting Gene Roddenberry's future then watch the Orville.
Kingsman: The Golden Circle
(2017)
Entertaining but a pale imitation of the first
23 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
It is probably because I loved the first Kingsman film so much that I felt so disappointed by the second. Kingsman:The Golden Circle is entertaining but lacks the charm and freshness of the first film. This is, as far as I can tell, due to the writing. Casual filmgoers might like it, but as a Kingsman aficionado I was so disappointed that I could cry.
The movie opens with Eggsy being confronted by a villain that he believed that he had killed in the first film, a too sudden and jarring opening that leads too a frenetic and OTT fight scene that contains 2 references to Roger Moore Bond films. Returning to Kingsman HQ Eggsy has to head off to an important date by jumping into a sewer - a ridiculous idea that mocks the character in a way that the first film never did, and totally took me out of the film. Tonally the film is all over the place.
The UK sequences in the film are fine with Mark Strong anchoring the film in another excellent performance. Sophie Cookson returns as Roxy . She is fine but she does somethings that Arthur ( a totally wasted Michael Gambon) should have done. This sets up the major problem with the film. Too many characters who do little or nothing in the film.
After the destruction of Kingsman HQ ( not a spoiler it's in the trailer)the only surviving Kingsman , Eggsy and Merlin, travel to the US and it is here that the film totally unravels.
We are introduced to the Statesmen. No problem with them on paper , and the cast are all fine, but with one exception they do little or nothing to advance the plot. You could literally remove Halle Berry from the film and it wouldn't matter. Similar for Channing Tatum and Jeff Bridges. Only Pedro Pascal is important to the plot, and he acquits himself superbly.
The US sequences reintroduce us to Harry Hart , who has lost his memory. I am glad that they brought the character back and Colin Firth is superb but the fact that Harry has amnesia takes far too long to resolve and is pointless. Added to the basically redundant Statesmen characters and the middle sequence is very pedestrian.
The film gets partially back on track with a sequence in an Italian ski resort which is spectacular ( but OTT) and then the Statesmen basically vanish- with one exception- and Harry, Eggsy and Merlin go to Cambodia to track down Poppy ( Julianne Moore). Here we needlessly( SPOILERS )kill Merlin. This is a huge loss to the film and the franchise. ( SPOILER) the press for the film showed Merlin at the end sequence in Highland dress, but he doesn't appear. If Mark Strong isn't in the next film then the Kingsman will have lost their heart even more than they do in this film.
The fight scenes are impressive but the poor script never really makes us care. There is a silly scene where the US president is impeached and replaced by a woman with blonde hair ( yes, we get it already)and the film is pretty much over except that the film has to set up more pointless Statesmen stuff, which pads out the running time even more.
The film can be summed up by Elton John's appearance. Elton is not by any means an actor but he is so ridiculously camp and over the top that he is funny.
The movie opens with Eggsy being confronted by a villain that he believed that he had killed in the first film, a too sudden and jarring opening that leads too a frenetic and OTT fight scene that contains 2 references to Roger Moore Bond films. Returning to Kingsman HQ Eggsy has to head off to an important date by jumping into a sewer - a ridiculous idea that mocks the character in a way that the first film never did, and totally took me out of the film. Tonally the film is all over the place.
The UK sequences in the film are fine with Mark Strong anchoring the film in another excellent performance. Sophie Cookson returns as Roxy . She is fine but she does somethings that Arthur ( a totally wasted Michael Gambon) should have done. This sets up the major problem with the film. Too many characters who do little or nothing in the film.
After the destruction of Kingsman HQ ( not a spoiler it's in the trailer)the only surviving Kingsman , Eggsy and Merlin, travel to the US and it is here that the film totally unravels.
We are introduced to the Statesmen. No problem with them on paper , and the cast are all fine, but with one exception they do little or nothing to advance the plot. You could literally remove Halle Berry from the film and it wouldn't matter. Similar for Channing Tatum and Jeff Bridges. Only Pedro Pascal is important to the plot, and he acquits himself superbly.
The US sequences reintroduce us to Harry Hart , who has lost his memory. I am glad that they brought the character back and Colin Firth is superb but the fact that Harry has amnesia takes far too long to resolve and is pointless. Added to the basically redundant Statesmen characters and the middle sequence is very pedestrian.
The film gets partially back on track with a sequence in an Italian ski resort which is spectacular ( but OTT) and then the Statesmen basically vanish- with one exception- and Harry, Eggsy and Merlin go to Cambodia to track down Poppy ( Julianne Moore). Here we needlessly( SPOILERS )kill Merlin. This is a huge loss to the film and the franchise. ( SPOILER) the press for the film showed Merlin at the end sequence in Highland dress, but he doesn't appear. If Mark Strong isn't in the next film then the Kingsman will have lost their heart even more than they do in this film.
The fight scenes are impressive but the poor script never really makes us care. There is a silly scene where the US president is impeached and replaced by a woman with blonde hair ( yes, we get it already)and the film is pretty much over except that the film has to set up more pointless Statesmen stuff, which pads out the running time even more.
The film can be summed up by Elton John's appearance. Elton is not by any means an actor but he is so ridiculously camp and over the top that he is funny.
The Orville
(2017–2022)
off to a great start
17 September 2017
I wasn't sure what to make of the Orville when it was first announced. I welcomed the idea of a sci-fi comedy , but was unsure of Seth McFarlane.
I loved Seth's work on Family Guy, was lukewarm on American Dad and unsure about A Million Ways To Die In The West. I feared that there would be too many toilet jokes.
Thankfully that didn't happen. The Orville pilot was a lovingly crafted sci fi drama with comedic overtones. The plot would work perfectly well as a sci fi series were the moments of comedy to be removed.
The world building is great. A welcome return to the bright optimistic vision of Gene Roddenberry, DC Fontana and Gene Coon, there seems to be little of the grim , dumbed down generic action that typifies modern Star Trek.
I liked the characters with Scott Grimes' Gordon Malloy establishing himself as an early favourite. McFarlane and Palicki have a strong rapport and their comic timing complements each other well. Halston Sage's character is adorable. All of the actors work well both individually and together.
The design and cinematography are first rate. I enthusiastically await the rest of the series.
I loved Seth's work on Family Guy, was lukewarm on American Dad and unsure about A Million Ways To Die In The West. I feared that there would be too many toilet jokes.
Thankfully that didn't happen. The Orville pilot was a lovingly crafted sci fi drama with comedic overtones. The plot would work perfectly well as a sci fi series were the moments of comedy to be removed.
The world building is great. A welcome return to the bright optimistic vision of Gene Roddenberry, DC Fontana and Gene Coon, there seems to be little of the grim , dumbed down generic action that typifies modern Star Trek.
I liked the characters with Scott Grimes' Gordon Malloy establishing himself as an early favourite. McFarlane and Palicki have a strong rapport and their comic timing complements each other well. Halston Sage's character is adorable. All of the actors work well both individually and together.
The design and cinematography are first rate. I enthusiastically await the rest of the series.
Granny of the Dead
(2017)
Even the zombies look bored
9 September 2017
This film is garbage.
The entire thing looks like it was shot on someone's mobile phone. The cast are universally bad and have impenetrable Welsh accents. I guarantee that most outside of the UK will find it impossible to understand what the characters are saying ( not that this is a loss. The script is dire and the acting abysmal).
No-one has a character ,or any charisma, is likable or attractive, not even the one whose outfit suggests that she is supposed to be the "hot" girl ( Sabrina Dickens).
The film isn't scary, funny or interesting. If you want find something to cure insomnia then Granny of The Dead might be it.
There is some amusement to be had from laughing at the incompetence of all involved but this will wear off long before the film is over.
The entire thing looks like it was shot on someone's mobile phone. The cast are universally bad and have impenetrable Welsh accents. I guarantee that most outside of the UK will find it impossible to understand what the characters are saying ( not that this is a loss. The script is dire and the acting abysmal).
No-one has a character ,or any charisma, is likable or attractive, not even the one whose outfit suggests that she is supposed to be the "hot" girl ( Sabrina Dickens).
The film isn't scary, funny or interesting. If you want find something to cure insomnia then Granny of The Dead might be it.
There is some amusement to be had from laughing at the incompetence of all involved but this will wear off long before the film is over.
Star Trek: Horizon
(2016)
not too bad by fan film standards but terrible script
7 September 2017
I suppose that it is unfair to judge Star Trek: Horizon by professional standards. Perhaps we have been spoiled by the excellence of Prelude To Axanar, Star Trek New Voyages and Star Trek Continues but I have begun to have high expectations for Trek fan films, perhaps unrealistically so.Those involved in the making of Star Trek: Horizon are , I assume, amateurs and probably cannot attain the professional standards of the aforementioned productions.
Excuses can be made for the poor acting and the fact that the film looks as though it was filmed through a dense fog, but there is no excuse for the completely unoriginal script. A good script should cost no more than a bad one. Horizon ( or should that be STH?) has a script that feels like a blatant rip off of previous Trek scripts with the elements put together in some semblance of order. That is simply not good enough. We loved Prelude To Axanar ( like the original Star Trek TV series) for their innovation. We adored Star Trek New Voyages and Star Trek Continues for their attention to atmosphere, tone and detail.
Mayve I'm being harsh but Star Trek:Horizon fails short in all these areas 3/10
Excuses can be made for the poor acting and the fact that the film looks as though it was filmed through a dense fog, but there is no excuse for the completely unoriginal script. A good script should cost no more than a bad one. Horizon ( or should that be STH?) has a script that feels like a blatant rip off of previous Trek scripts with the elements put together in some semblance of order. That is simply not good enough. We loved Prelude To Axanar ( like the original Star Trek TV series) for their innovation. We adored Star Trek New Voyages and Star Trek Continues for their attention to atmosphere, tone and detail.
Mayve I'm being harsh but Star Trek:Horizon fails short in all these areas 3/10
Audition
(II) (2013)
Needs A Better Actress
23 July 2017
The idea behind this short film is predictable, but effective enough for a film with a running time of less than five minutes. The " twist" ending can be seen a mile away but is potentially entertaining enough to sustain an audience's attention for such a short run time.
The problem is the acting. Lauren Shotton is absolutely wooden throughout the film. She shows practically no emotion in response to the various things that happen to her. It is impossible to identify with, or believe in, a character that doesn't react at all during such an ordeal. The poor acting robs the film of any sympathy we might have had for Cherry and consequently any drama, horror or entertainment value.
The problem is the acting. Lauren Shotton is absolutely wooden throughout the film. She shows practically no emotion in response to the various things that happen to her. It is impossible to identify with, or believe in, a character that doesn't react at all during such an ordeal. The poor acting robs the film of any sympathy we might have had for Cherry and consequently any drama, horror or entertainment value.
Chessgame
(1983)
Terence Stamp is a wooden charisma vacuum
3 June 2017
I like the books that this series was based on, and the series has some good qualities, but the problem is that Terence Stamp is the same dull, boring piece of wood that he is in everything else that I've seen him in.
Given the relatively slow pacing of some of these productions the actor playing Audley needs to lift the story up, and Stamp's lifeless, wooden performance drags them down. Which is a shame because the rest of the cast are good, with the under-rated Carmen Du Sautoy on fine form.
Worth a watch if you like slower paced spy fiction but could have been great with a leading actor who could actually act.
Given the relatively slow pacing of some of these productions the actor playing Audley needs to lift the story up, and Stamp's lifeless, wooden performance drags them down. Which is a shame because the rest of the cast are good, with the under-rated Carmen Du Sautoy on fine form.
Worth a watch if you like slower paced spy fiction but could have been great with a leading actor who could actually act.
Money Kills
(2012)
pitiful
26 May 2017
Cheap, lazy and amateurish. There is virtually noting to recommend this " film". Sorry did I say virtually? I meant literally nothing to recommend it.
Obviously made on a micro budget the makers of this tragedy had zero ability to write a script and less than zero to bring it to life. They assembled a hand picked team of people with no talent , both in front of and behind the camera.
"Acting" is non existent. Editing seems to have been done with a hammer.
The sound is awful. I have seen much much better efforts on youtube. The only thing saving this trash from the IMDb bottom 100 is the fact that so few people have seen it.
I don't know who to pity more. The people who worked on it, or the people who invested in it.
Obviously made on a micro budget the makers of this tragedy had zero ability to write a script and less than zero to bring it to life. They assembled a hand picked team of people with no talent , both in front of and behind the camera.
"Acting" is non existent. Editing seems to have been done with a hammer.
The sound is awful. I have seen much much better efforts on youtube. The only thing saving this trash from the IMDb bottom 100 is the fact that so few people have seen it.
I don't know who to pity more. The people who worked on it, or the people who invested in it.
Stratton
(2017)
Simon West strikes again
10 April 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I really like Duncan Falconer's novels and was hoping that this would be a good movie.
Hopes faded somewhat when Simon West was appointed as director, but still thought this might work. And it might have with original leading man Henry Cavill.
Cavill left the project early and was replaced with Dominic Cooper. Cooper doesn't have the presence, the charisma or the physicality to play the lead in this kind of movie. He is far too bland to play the Stratton of Falconer's novels.
The script seems to be a loose reworking of Falconer's first novel, although of course , in a bid to win over American viewers, the villains are no longer IRA terrorists.
Under West's direction the movie is robbed of any tension or excitement that it should have had. There are some decent action scenes but they are not engaging.
Aside from Cooper the other bad piece of miscasting is Connie Neilson, whose attempts at a cut glass English accent are a strain on the ears.
As a piece of trivia if Cavill had played Stratton you would have had two Superman actors working together, Cavill and Tyler whatsisname.
Hopes faded somewhat when Simon West was appointed as director, but still thought this might work. And it might have with original leading man Henry Cavill.
Cavill left the project early and was replaced with Dominic Cooper. Cooper doesn't have the presence, the charisma or the physicality to play the lead in this kind of movie. He is far too bland to play the Stratton of Falconer's novels.
The script seems to be a loose reworking of Falconer's first novel, although of course , in a bid to win over American viewers, the villains are no longer IRA terrorists.
Under West's direction the movie is robbed of any tension or excitement that it should have had. There are some decent action scenes but they are not engaging.
Aside from Cooper the other bad piece of miscasting is Connie Neilson, whose attempts at a cut glass English accent are a strain on the ears.
As a piece of trivia if Cavill had played Stratton you would have had two Superman actors working together, Cavill and Tyler whatsisname.
Pixels
(2015)
terrible
7 August 2015
This is just an incredibly lazy film. No-one involved with it seems to care about it, so why should I?
The script is based on a short film ( although the animated series Futurama came up with this idea many years earlier) but the attempt to turn the short into a feature failed as soon as Adam Sandler was involved.
Sandler appears to make zero effort in this flick. He looks bored, almost sedated. When scenes require complex visual effects Sandler merely goes through the motions, with a " they'll fix this in post" expression on his face. It just feels like he wants to get back to his trailer and go back to sleep.
kevin James is in this, playing the US President! If that piece of casting alone doesn't tell you what a lazy, lowest common denominator money grab this is, then I don't know what will.
The use of 80s video games is a cynical attempt to cash in on nostalgia. Sad to see Peter Dinklage and Sean Bean in this.
The script is based on a short film ( although the animated series Futurama came up with this idea many years earlier) but the attempt to turn the short into a feature failed as soon as Adam Sandler was involved.
Sandler appears to make zero effort in this flick. He looks bored, almost sedated. When scenes require complex visual effects Sandler merely goes through the motions, with a " they'll fix this in post" expression on his face. It just feels like he wants to get back to his trailer and go back to sleep.
kevin James is in this, playing the US President! If that piece of casting alone doesn't tell you what a lazy, lowest common denominator money grab this is, then I don't know what will.
The use of 80s video games is a cynical attempt to cash in on nostalgia. Sad to see Peter Dinklage and Sean Bean in this.
Spy
(2015)
embarrassing
6 July 2015
This is the first movie that I have ever seen involving either Paul Feig or Melissa McCarthy. sadly I was unimpressed.
Since Feig is credited with writing and directing this nonsense. he must shoulder much of the blame. The script makes no sense at all, which might be less damaging in a slapstick piece of froth, like this is supposed to be, if the film was more entertaining.
The dialogue is risible. It sounds like something said by the barely literate twitter teenagers who must surely be the only people that could possibly be interested in watching this.
The direction is mediocre, workmanlike and unimaginative.
The casting leaves a lot to be desired. Apparently Feig has worked with McCarthy a lot, and her playing a lead in this just seems like lazy nepotism.
Jude Law is terrible as the CIA's top agent, his US accent is weak, and his embarrassment is topped ( no pun intended) by his terrible toupee.
saving graces are Jason Statham, spoofing his on screen persona brilliantly, but his potential is totally wasted.
Miranda Hart- an actress I have never particularly liked- is surprisingly good here, and brings an energy the film doesn't deserve.
Since Feig is credited with writing and directing this nonsense. he must shoulder much of the blame. The script makes no sense at all, which might be less damaging in a slapstick piece of froth, like this is supposed to be, if the film was more entertaining.
The dialogue is risible. It sounds like something said by the barely literate twitter teenagers who must surely be the only people that could possibly be interested in watching this.
The direction is mediocre, workmanlike and unimaginative.
The casting leaves a lot to be desired. Apparently Feig has worked with McCarthy a lot, and her playing a lead in this just seems like lazy nepotism.
Jude Law is terrible as the CIA's top agent, his US accent is weak, and his embarrassment is topped ( no pun intended) by his terrible toupee.
saving graces are Jason Statham, spoofing his on screen persona brilliantly, but his potential is totally wasted.
Miranda Hart- an actress I have never particularly liked- is surprisingly good here, and brings an energy the film doesn't deserve.
Mad Max: Fury Road
(2015)
massively over-rated
3 June 2015
I am unsure where the rave reviews for this movie are coming from, certainly the film does not deserve its current position in the IMDb top 250.
The film supposedly takes place between Mad Max 2 and 3, immediately robbing the audience of any sense of jeopardy for Mad Max.
There isn't much of a plot ( and some sources claim that the film didn't even have a script ), just a long desert chase which gets repetitive very quickly.
We are given a new actor in the role of Max Rockatansky, Tom Hardy. Sadly, Hardy is less than stellar in the charisma department, and his performance is ineffectual. In addition the film sidelines Max in order to showcase other characters and reduces him to an ineffectual character on the rare occasions when he is given something to do.
Charlize Theron is Furiosa, the real star of the movie. Her performance is better but, despite a cascade of social media claims to the contrary, the idea of a warrior woman is an old and tired one even for the Mad Max franchise.
The film is mainly a seemingly interminable drive through the desert. Pacing is terrible and I wasn't engaged by the characters.
the saving grace is the cinematography, which is beautiful, but not enough to redeem the film as a whole.
The film supposedly takes place between Mad Max 2 and 3, immediately robbing the audience of any sense of jeopardy for Mad Max.
There isn't much of a plot ( and some sources claim that the film didn't even have a script ), just a long desert chase which gets repetitive very quickly.
We are given a new actor in the role of Max Rockatansky, Tom Hardy. Sadly, Hardy is less than stellar in the charisma department, and his performance is ineffectual. In addition the film sidelines Max in order to showcase other characters and reduces him to an ineffectual character on the rare occasions when he is given something to do.
Charlize Theron is Furiosa, the real star of the movie. Her performance is better but, despite a cascade of social media claims to the contrary, the idea of a warrior woman is an old and tired one even for the Mad Max franchise.
The film is mainly a seemingly interminable drive through the desert. Pacing is terrible and I wasn't engaged by the characters.
the saving grace is the cinematography, which is beautiful, but not enough to redeem the film as a whole.
Assassin
(2015 Video)
another nail in the coffin of British film
26 May 2015
I don't know what fills me with despair more - the fact that Danny Dyer keeps making " movies", or the fact that I keep watching them.
Anyway in this one Danny plays Danny Dyer pretending to be a hit-man ( zzzz) who falls in love with...I've lost the will to go on and this is just the synopsis on the DVD box.
Anyway Danny is in this, along with that Kemp from eastenders . and his brother ( no, not Steve Mcfadden the other one). Danny spends much of the movie riding about pointlessly on a motorbike. Well I suppose the running time has to be padded out somehow.
There is little action and no suspense. After a dull action scene in which Dyer wanders about without taking his crash helmet off ( like a less animated version of the Stig with a lisp), he receives a summons to meet gangland heavies martin kemp and his brother ( not Phil Mitchell). After a cheeky nandos and some top bantz wiv da lads, Dyer gets the info on his next execution..and from there things begin to get interesting . ( if by interesting you mean predictable, boring and idiotic).
As usual Dyer looks bored and vaguely resentful, martin Kemp looks grateful to be earning enough to pay for hair dye, and everyone else seems to be auditioning to be an extra in The Walking Dead.
There is nothing that resembles a plot or a denouement.
Insert your own joke about Danny Dyer and "helmet". I can't be bothered.
Anyway in this one Danny plays Danny Dyer pretending to be a hit-man ( zzzz) who falls in love with...I've lost the will to go on and this is just the synopsis on the DVD box.
Anyway Danny is in this, along with that Kemp from eastenders . and his brother ( no, not Steve Mcfadden the other one). Danny spends much of the movie riding about pointlessly on a motorbike. Well I suppose the running time has to be padded out somehow.
There is little action and no suspense. After a dull action scene in which Dyer wanders about without taking his crash helmet off ( like a less animated version of the Stig with a lisp), he receives a summons to meet gangland heavies martin kemp and his brother ( not Phil Mitchell). After a cheeky nandos and some top bantz wiv da lads, Dyer gets the info on his next execution..and from there things begin to get interesting . ( if by interesting you mean predictable, boring and idiotic).
As usual Dyer looks bored and vaguely resentful, martin Kemp looks grateful to be earning enough to pay for hair dye, and everyone else seems to be auditioning to be an extra in The Walking Dead.
There is nothing that resembles a plot or a denouement.
Insert your own joke about Danny Dyer and "helmet". I can't be bothered.
Thunderbirds Are Go
(2015– )
not enjoying it
24 May 2015
Having grown up with vivid memories of repeat broadcasts the original Thunderbirds series, I am fully aware that I am too old to be the target audience for this new series, but I must confess that I don't much care for the new version.
The casting is unmemorable- apart from the absolutely awful new Lady Penelope voiced by Rosamund Pike. Pike seems utterly bored and makes no attempt to invest the character with any personality or life.
The music is mediocre, and it speaks volumes when the use of a piece of music from the 60s version is the highlight of one of the new episodes.
Effects are passable, although the combination of CGI with occasional bits of modelwork seems a little clunky. I do like the design of the slightly reworked Thunderbirds vehicles.
Not all changes seem so well thought. Brains has now changed race for no discernible reason.
The short running time is a demerit for the new series. Plots are too linear, too simplistic. There is little characterisation.
Sadly the tension and drama that the old Thunderbirds sometimes captured is completely absent from the new version.
The casting is unmemorable- apart from the absolutely awful new Lady Penelope voiced by Rosamund Pike. Pike seems utterly bored and makes no attempt to invest the character with any personality or life.
The music is mediocre, and it speaks volumes when the use of a piece of music from the 60s version is the highlight of one of the new episodes.
Effects are passable, although the combination of CGI with occasional bits of modelwork seems a little clunky. I do like the design of the slightly reworked Thunderbirds vehicles.
Not all changes seem so well thought. Brains has now changed race for no discernible reason.
The short running time is a demerit for the new series. Plots are too linear, too simplistic. There is little characterisation.
Sadly the tension and drama that the old Thunderbirds sometimes captured is completely absent from the new version.
Mortdecai
(2015)
fingers down a blackboard
29 April 2015
This poor excuse for a movie is excruciating! I don't mind Johnny Depp as a rule but his bizarre, indulgent performance here makes the movie unwatchable.
The most obvious inspirations for Depp's character are Terry Thomas and Peter Sellers, and it is possible that TT or Sellers might have had more success with the titular Mordecai than Depp.
Personally Depp's relationship with his servant, and Paul Bettany's performance as such , reminded me of the comedy series Believe Nothing, in which the late and much missed Rik Mayall plays Adonis Cnut, assisted by his violent and devoted manservant Albumen. Bettany's mannerisms even mimicked Albumen's for much of the film.
sadly Depp doesn't have the comic genius of Rik Mayall either, and his grating attempt at an English accent is unbearable. At least Ewan McGregor, as a Scotland Yard Inspector, has the good grace to look embarrassed to be in this rubbish.
A strong contender for worst film of 2015
The most obvious inspirations for Depp's character are Terry Thomas and Peter Sellers, and it is possible that TT or Sellers might have had more success with the titular Mordecai than Depp.
Personally Depp's relationship with his servant, and Paul Bettany's performance as such , reminded me of the comedy series Believe Nothing, in which the late and much missed Rik Mayall plays Adonis Cnut, assisted by his violent and devoted manservant Albumen. Bettany's mannerisms even mimicked Albumen's for much of the film.
sadly Depp doesn't have the comic genius of Rik Mayall either, and his grating attempt at an English accent is unbearable. At least Ewan McGregor, as a Scotland Yard Inspector, has the good grace to look embarrassed to be in this rubbish.
A strong contender for worst film of 2015
Pasty Faces
(2000)
dreadful
25 April 2015
I shall refrain from speculation on who gave this roadkill a good review, or what their motives were for doing so.
I will say that I am completely baffled as to how anyone could think this dross is a good film.
It is not a failure because of the miniscule budget. Other micro budget films have been entertaining. It is a failure because it has literally nothing to recommend it.
A meandering, idiotic, dull script plods along without ever reaching the dizzying heights of banal. The lead characters are irritating ( one is particularly so).
The fact that they are brought to life by a selection of underwhelming actors doesn't help. Also, the fact that the "writer" created this script as a starring vehicle for himself is seldom a good sign.
I understand that everyone has different tastes but it is virtually impossible to praise any aspect of this production.
I will say that I am completely baffled as to how anyone could think this dross is a good film.
It is not a failure because of the miniscule budget. Other micro budget films have been entertaining. It is a failure because it has literally nothing to recommend it.
A meandering, idiotic, dull script plods along without ever reaching the dizzying heights of banal. The lead characters are irritating ( one is particularly so).
The fact that they are brought to life by a selection of underwhelming actors doesn't help. Also, the fact that the "writer" created this script as a starring vehicle for himself is seldom a good sign.
I understand that everyone has different tastes but it is virtually impossible to praise any aspect of this production.
Unwelcome
(2011)
If you have never seen a movie before it might be tolerable
22 April 2015
This is an obvious attempt to do the absolute bare minimum to get a film released as a cash cow.
The script is so generic, derivative and predictable that you can tell how it is going to end almost as soon as it begins. If the makers of this project cared about their work then they would try to subvert the audiences expectations. The fact that no attempt is made to do this shows that the quality of the finished project is an irrelevance.
The "actors" in this film are the usual z-listers who seem to turn up to blight zero budget rubbish on a regular basis. They have nothing that could ever be mistaken for talent.
The lack of money would be damaging even if the script and actors were better. The lighting is way too dark in places.
Don't bother.
The script is so generic, derivative and predictable that you can tell how it is going to end almost as soon as it begins. If the makers of this project cared about their work then they would try to subvert the audiences expectations. The fact that no attempt is made to do this shows that the quality of the finished project is an irrelevance.
The "actors" in this film are the usual z-listers who seem to turn up to blight zero budget rubbish on a regular basis. They have nothing that could ever be mistaken for talent.
The lack of money would be damaging even if the script and actors were better. The lighting is way too dark in places.
Don't bother.
Amnesiac
(2013)
incomprehensible
20 April 2015
Amnesiac is one of those films that is totally unsatisfying , both while watching it and when thinking about it afterwards. The story drifts into somewhat muddled mysticism. I don't really know what the writer was trying to say, and I don't think that they did either.
The low budget cripples the film in many ways , and is jarringly obvious to the audience. This is a further step in distancing the viewer from what is going on on screen. There may be a mystery here but it is not one that the audience cares about enough to try to solve.
The poor quality of the acting is a further disconnect with attempting to follow the film.
When the film had ended my reaction was "is that it? what a waste of time".
Spend the time doing something else instead
The low budget cripples the film in many ways , and is jarringly obvious to the audience. This is a further step in distancing the viewer from what is going on on screen. There may be a mystery here but it is not one that the audience cares about enough to try to solve.
The poor quality of the acting is a further disconnect with attempting to follow the film.
When the film had ended my reaction was "is that it? what a waste of time".
Spend the time doing something else instead
Tell Your Friends