I wouldn't even call this a movie. More like a feature length first year student project edited on a phone. I can only assume this was a tax loss or else funded by a church or other agenda. Always suspicious when a film has reviews taring it 1/10 and also 10/10 almost like the film isn't the thing being reviewed; but the message? The dialogue, the acting and the cinematography are beyond awful. The story incomprehensible.
Reviews
8 Reviews
Dirt poor rip off of Inglourious Basterds.
7 January 2018
This is what happens, when fanboys a try to make films. It's not the tiny budget or the terrible accents that make this film awful. It's the obscene directorial hubris in attempting to ape Tarantino's mastery of the long tense slow-build scene.
Having said that, if you don't have a lot of money, and you're filming in the UK with British actors, why not attempt something you might actually achieve, instead of totally over reaching yourself?
Having said that, if you don't have a lot of money, and you're filming in the UK with British actors, why not attempt something you might actually achieve, instead of totally over reaching yourself?
The Mountain Between Us
(2017)
Prozac with Scenery.
30 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Quite literally nothing happens in this film that you don't expect. A great actor and a good actor and some nice scenery, but a script from a t.v. movie of the 80s. The word 'alive' comes up quite a bit, in a none too natural way, to offer a big signpost to the metaphor of the story, in case it hadn't occurred to you that the couple's fight for survival was a parallel of their struggle to feel alive in their emotional lives. I don't really buy Elba as a doctor, a widower or a man smitten. He's a good actor but I suspect he was cast here because of the lifeless tone of his acting style. Yawn.
Jason Bourne
(I) (2016)
4 strong films out of 5 isn't bad.
27 July 2016
The powerful psychological hook of the first, second and third Bourne film depends upon the main character not fully knowing who he is, and what his past contains. This device vicariously appeals to the vanity of the audience member by simultaneously offering the seductive notion that a person might amount to much more than one knows and also, beguilingly, the potential of a fresh start, cleansed of all sins.
The trouble with 'Jason Bourne,' the latest offering in the franchise, is that, since all of the mystery has now been laid bare and Mr. Bourne knows exactly what he did, for whom and why, his sense of outrage in being used as a tool by a series of ambitious and unscrupulous masters, lacks any moral foundation. Given that he signed up to be a deadly weapon for the CIA, a contingency of which all governments must surely have need, and went about his business assassinating strangers 'to save American lives' the scope for bearing a grudge would seem to be limited, and as he excavates yet another strata of rotten power-mongers within the U.S. intelligence community in search of justice, it becomes increasingly difficult to accept the body count of tangentially involved parties and indeed innocent bystanders laid waste by those pursuing him, who would have survived if only Bourne had just kept his head down and lived out his days in some remote clime.
Also difficult to accept is Bourne's propensity to repeatedly place himself in positions where he is certain to be detected and only moments from capture before mounting a desperate bid to avoid his pursuers by the skin of his teeth. He does this four times in the film, obviously as a means of motivating a chase sequence, but in each case, for being so avoidable the ensuing action sequence seems somehow under motivated.
All in all, I didn't hate 'Jason Bourne,' but I was hoping Paul Greengrass would revive the economy and artful exposition of 'The Bourne Identity,' rather than opt for the tried and tested sequel logic of 'more is better'.
The trouble with 'Jason Bourne,' the latest offering in the franchise, is that, since all of the mystery has now been laid bare and Mr. Bourne knows exactly what he did, for whom and why, his sense of outrage in being used as a tool by a series of ambitious and unscrupulous masters, lacks any moral foundation. Given that he signed up to be a deadly weapon for the CIA, a contingency of which all governments must surely have need, and went about his business assassinating strangers 'to save American lives' the scope for bearing a grudge would seem to be limited, and as he excavates yet another strata of rotten power-mongers within the U.S. intelligence community in search of justice, it becomes increasingly difficult to accept the body count of tangentially involved parties and indeed innocent bystanders laid waste by those pursuing him, who would have survived if only Bourne had just kept his head down and lived out his days in some remote clime.
Also difficult to accept is Bourne's propensity to repeatedly place himself in positions where he is certain to be detected and only moments from capture before mounting a desperate bid to avoid his pursuers by the skin of his teeth. He does this four times in the film, obviously as a means of motivating a chase sequence, but in each case, for being so avoidable the ensuing action sequence seems somehow under motivated.
All in all, I didn't hate 'Jason Bourne,' but I was hoping Paul Greengrass would revive the economy and artful exposition of 'The Bourne Identity,' rather than opt for the tried and tested sequel logic of 'more is better'.
London Has Fallen
(2016)
Woeful tripe
29 May 2016
Warning: Spoilers
If you wandered into the room and this movie was already playing, you'd never know it was a film at all. It looks like a feeble imitation of something like Spooks,which is itself, a feeble imitation of 24.
Except it's not even that good! Most films are shot on video these days but with the right lenses and post production video can be very cinematic. The look of 'London has Fallen' though, is sub t.v. drama. The effects look like they were done on an Iphone app. Maybe they were going for a documentary feel? No. You do that in order to achieve realism, and realism is no part of the philosophy of this tosh.
The script for instance is mind blowingly dumb. . Characters are constantly doing things that they simply wouldn't do, given their motivation:
If you were driving a bullet proof car containing the president, being chased by 20 armed motorcyclists, would you hang out of the door and open fire with a 9mm? No, you'd be throwing away your only advantage. You'd probably not hit anyone, except maybe an innocent bystander, and most likely get shot yourself. Far better to slam on the brakes and cause the bikes to crash into you. Shouldn't be too hard, given that each rider has an Uzi in their right hand thus preventing them braking effectively.
Or, , if you were a senior member of the secret service, and you identified a double agent feeding information to terrorists FOR MONEY, would you confront them alone in a car park with no backup and shoot them dead for being a bad egg (assuming your gun doesn't jam)? No, they're your only lead to the organisation that has murdered half of the world's leaders. You'd interrogate them,and possibly offer them a deal and a bribe.
Likewise, if you were a terrorist and you had the U.S. President in your clutches and the S.A.S battering at your door, would you risk waiting until the power comes back on before executing him so you can stream it live? Or would you video it on your phone and upload it to YouTube?
It's tempting to speculate, that 59 million of the 60 million dollars it took to make this movie was spent on a huge 48 hour cocaine fuelled, binge, that appears in the accounts as a 'script development meeting', and during which, all of the production team competed to produce the most clunky and meaningless piece of dialogue, or the most demented plot device, so they could giggle about it later.
To say that the plot doesn't matter in an action film is a cop out. Action films can be intelligent and involving, if you do them right (The Bourne Films) or they can be, as in this case, a load of corny, macho drivel.
Except it's not even that good! Most films are shot on video these days but with the right lenses and post production video can be very cinematic. The look of 'London has Fallen' though, is sub t.v. drama. The effects look like they were done on an Iphone app. Maybe they were going for a documentary feel? No. You do that in order to achieve realism, and realism is no part of the philosophy of this tosh.
The script for instance is mind blowingly dumb. . Characters are constantly doing things that they simply wouldn't do, given their motivation:
If you were driving a bullet proof car containing the president, being chased by 20 armed motorcyclists, would you hang out of the door and open fire with a 9mm? No, you'd be throwing away your only advantage. You'd probably not hit anyone, except maybe an innocent bystander, and most likely get shot yourself. Far better to slam on the brakes and cause the bikes to crash into you. Shouldn't be too hard, given that each rider has an Uzi in their right hand thus preventing them braking effectively.
Or, , if you were a senior member of the secret service, and you identified a double agent feeding information to terrorists FOR MONEY, would you confront them alone in a car park with no backup and shoot them dead for being a bad egg (assuming your gun doesn't jam)? No, they're your only lead to the organisation that has murdered half of the world's leaders. You'd interrogate them,and possibly offer them a deal and a bribe.
Likewise, if you were a terrorist and you had the U.S. President in your clutches and the S.A.S battering at your door, would you risk waiting until the power comes back on before executing him so you can stream it live? Or would you video it on your phone and upload it to YouTube?
It's tempting to speculate, that 59 million of the 60 million dollars it took to make this movie was spent on a huge 48 hour cocaine fuelled, binge, that appears in the accounts as a 'script development meeting', and during which, all of the production team competed to produce the most clunky and meaningless piece of dialogue, or the most demented plot device, so they could giggle about it later.
To say that the plot doesn't matter in an action film is a cop out. Action films can be intelligent and involving, if you do them right (The Bourne Films) or they can be, as in this case, a load of corny, macho drivel.
The Love Punch
(2013)
Great Cast Awful Movie
10 September 2014
Love Punch is a rom com that is neither romantic nor funny.
In spite of it's line up of quality British actors the result is a silly farce with no sexual chemistry between the lead actors and literally no funny lines whatsoever.
The premise seems to be that it is intrinsically hilarious to watch people in their 60s do things that people in their 30s do better - nope!
Such a shame more time and money wasn't spent developing the script to beef up the characters and build their motivations to take the step of attempting a robbery that no one in their right mind would try.
One might argue that it's a light hearted film so you just have to accept that the plot is flimsy, but this overlooks the fact that to sympathise with the characters you have to believe them to be justified - call me uncharitable but, whilst it's sad if a privileged divorcée whose kids have grown up and who watches daytime t.v all day, loses her pension and has only her nice house her family and her health and looks to console her, it doesn't really tear me up inside. (perhaps I shouldn't have watched it off the back of 'Twelve Years a Slave')
Anyway, to qualify as lighthearted it needs to have jokes and comedy timing, not just a musical montage every five minutes cut to the kind of track you can buy the rights to on a budget.
Where's Richard Curtis when you need him?
In spite of it's line up of quality British actors the result is a silly farce with no sexual chemistry between the lead actors and literally no funny lines whatsoever.
The premise seems to be that it is intrinsically hilarious to watch people in their 60s do things that people in their 30s do better - nope!
Such a shame more time and money wasn't spent developing the script to beef up the characters and build their motivations to take the step of attempting a robbery that no one in their right mind would try.
One might argue that it's a light hearted film so you just have to accept that the plot is flimsy, but this overlooks the fact that to sympathise with the characters you have to believe them to be justified - call me uncharitable but, whilst it's sad if a privileged divorcée whose kids have grown up and who watches daytime t.v all day, loses her pension and has only her nice house her family and her health and looks to console her, it doesn't really tear me up inside. (perhaps I shouldn't have watched it off the back of 'Twelve Years a Slave')
Anyway, to qualify as lighthearted it needs to have jokes and comedy timing, not just a musical montage every five minutes cut to the kind of track you can buy the rights to on a budget.
Where's Richard Curtis when you need him?
Somewhere
(2010)
Less is less.
27 December 2010
'Somewhere' anatomizes the mindset of a man who has everything - except purpose. Johnny Marco is a thriving Hollywood actor but his soul is adrift on the sea of ennui which afflicts those to whom life denies nothing – he lacks meaningful relationships and doesn't know what to do with himself between projects.
In classic European art-house style Coppola evokes Marco's inner desolation through the extensive use of eccentrically framed, lingering, static, wide shots in which the focus of attention listlessly enters and leaves frame. And she does this relentlessly throughout the movie to the point that, like Marco, you just want to give up. Yes the guy is a bit defocused, a bit haunted and generally of a bit of a mid life plateau and yes these attributes are successfully evoked by the directorial style, but the result is so anodyne that you just want to watch a film about a guy with some real reasons to be miserable.
Naturally you're hoping he'll rediscover his mojo through his relationship with his daughter and work out what to do with his life but given the film's obvious anti-Hollywood credentials, you feel your optimism for any kind of resolution seeping away just like Johnny Marco's.
I imagine that if you are the daughter of a like-able, pampered but lost Marco figure, drowning in existential anxiety, then this character study is pretty poignant but it's really no more than a letter from Coppola to her father – and, of course, a gift to the type of film-goer for whom every aspect of the human condition, including boredom - is interesting.
Sometimes less is more; sometimes it's just less.
In classic European art-house style Coppola evokes Marco's inner desolation through the extensive use of eccentrically framed, lingering, static, wide shots in which the focus of attention listlessly enters and leaves frame. And she does this relentlessly throughout the movie to the point that, like Marco, you just want to give up. Yes the guy is a bit defocused, a bit haunted and generally of a bit of a mid life plateau and yes these attributes are successfully evoked by the directorial style, but the result is so anodyne that you just want to watch a film about a guy with some real reasons to be miserable.
Naturally you're hoping he'll rediscover his mojo through his relationship with his daughter and work out what to do with his life but given the film's obvious anti-Hollywood credentials, you feel your optimism for any kind of resolution seeping away just like Johnny Marco's.
I imagine that if you are the daughter of a like-able, pampered but lost Marco figure, drowning in existential anxiety, then this character study is pretty poignant but it's really no more than a letter from Coppola to her father – and, of course, a gift to the type of film-goer for whom every aspect of the human condition, including boredom - is interesting.
Sometimes less is more; sometimes it's just less.
Special Ops
(2010)
A truly terrible Movie.
25 November 2010
The first line of the film says it all - A soldier recovers consciousness on a shoreline after an ambush which claimed the lives of his entire team 'Captain Kyle Pearson US Marines' he says into his radio whilst standing in plain sight on a beach waiting to get shot. What about taking cover? What about Sound discipline? what about covert call-signs? The moronic dialogue, demented, perfunctory, linear plot and execrable acting conspire to ensure that never for a second will you accept the illusion that that you are watching a squad of elite soldiers, carrying out a special ops mission.
From the very first scene you are in no doubt that Disarmed is a Turkey. With dodgy eyelines, awful lighting, blatantly amateurish audio and endlessly uninventive shot selection throughout, this film looks like a cheap seventies TV series which has been dubbed into a foreign language and then dubbed back again by a different set of actors.
From the very first scene you are in no doubt that Disarmed is a Turkey. With dodgy eyelines, awful lighting, blatantly amateurish audio and endlessly uninventive shot selection throughout, this film looks like a cheap seventies TV series which has been dubbed into a foreign language and then dubbed back again by a different set of actors.
Tell Your Friends