Reviews

This is by far the worst written drama I've ever watched, and I've seen a lot of terrible programs. The female characters act in completely nonsensical and ridiculous ways; the main male character is worse than useless; and the bad guys are the worst kind of stereotypes. I had to stop watching at episode 3 as the bad writing and characterisation was actually making me angry. I mean, I've watched B level horrors that are written better than this.

It actually got to the point that I knew what was going to happen next as the characters are such stereotypes and it uses every troupe in the playbook.

Please don't waste your time.

Born in 1976, the first film I remember seeing at the cinema was 'Return of the Jedi'. I am a lifelong Star Wars fan. I'm just home from seeing episode ix and I really enjoyed it. I laughed, I cried. I loved seeing the old characters mixed with the new. Yes, I still don't really like Rey and I've always felt that Adam Driver was the wrong casting decision, but it wasn't enough to put me off. I don't really understand the negative reviews. Star Wars was never a high brow Sci-Fi. It was a film that was targeted at kids and adults alike. No actors are going to match the ones that made up the original trilogy, particularly Fisher and Ford. But hell, it was an enjoyable ride.

I really can't understand the negative reviews of this film! If you can't understand the plot, you've really not been paying attention! The character development is wonderful, the story is very much faithful to the HP universe but focussed on adults - and all the better because of it. Law surprisingly plays a very good Dumbledore; while Depp is actually not acting as Jack Sparrow and does a great job. The addition of the animals is wonderful. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and look forward to the next one. Ignore the negative reviews and immerse yourself in Rowling's world.

I hadn't heard about his film and what a fantastic surprise! What a bloody brilliantly Sci-Fi movie. My OH states that it's the best film he's seen since The Matrix. Although I wouldn't go that far, I would recommend it. The lead actor is brilliant. I loved him in the Invitation and this was such a totally different role. The characterisation is good, the effects are great and I even liked the ending. Rarely give out a 10 but I couldn't find fault with this. It's not the most intelligent film, a little predictable, but it's a great Sci-Fi/Action.

Okay, I'm a bit late to the party as I've not seen Batman vs Superman. But Affleck is a terrible Batman. Like, a really terrible Batman. As the character is pivotal to this movie, it caused a major problem for me. The other characters/ actors are all pretty good. The plot is completely cliched, but hey, it's a superhero movie so that's expected. But Batman. The worst actor out of all of the Batmen. Worse than I could've even expected. On the plus side, Cavell is a great Superman.

The first thing I would say after watching this movie is that it is very Tarantino but unlike any of his previous movies. It is a character based drama in the Western genre. The focus is on characterisation and morality. Please do not watch of you are expecting an action- packed film. Instead, this is a stage drama: a limited setting that allows exploration of the characters and the interpersonal relationships between them. The setting could almost be a microcosm for modern day America. There are no likable characters within this: they truly are a hateful eight. However, this does not make the viewer disengage. Instead, interest in each of them is heightened as you attempt to work out the truths and lies. A thoroughly enjoyable journey.

What a disappointment this movie is. It is a visual treat and the actors do what they can with what they have, but the plot is ridiculously predictable. The setting is a wonderful old English house, yet this is barely used in the plot: it seems such wasted possibilities. The movie lacks the one thing that makes a good ghost story - the creation and build up of tension. At no point does it get you even near the edge of your seat. The characterisation is interesting at first but after the first quarter, the characters settle into superficial stereotypes that make the 'twist' extremely obvious. The ghosts are ridiculous CGI: they look like something from a film a decade ago when this was first used (they are even worse than those in 'The Haunting'). And truthfully, they are pointless in relation to the plot and would be better off not there at all. This is very obviously a 'reworking' of 'The Fall of the House of Usher'. I just wish they had stuck to Poe's original plot. At least there may have been some tension. A very dull and predictable ghost story that could have and should have been great.

Well, that's time in my life I'll never get back! The problem with this movie is that it doesn't know what it is. It can't decide if it is a black comedy or a horror. It is not funny enough for the first and not good enough for the second. Due to the plot, this should create an unnerving, claustrophobic atmosphere. However, this falls very flat. In addition to this, the characters are far too two-dimensional: as a viewer I really didn't care what happened to them. The mother is unbelievable, as are her actions which make up the main plot- would you just send your children to stay with your parents you had been estranged from for fifteen years? The grandparents and the children are stereotypical and superficial, the plot is predictable and eye-rollingly bad. The mise-en-scene is poor. The film lacks at every level. Avoid at all costs.

I was looking forward to this as I love Natalie Dormer. And it was actually much better than I expected. The setting was atmospheric and disturbing, allowing the vulnerability of the character to be exposed. I felt engaged with the journey the character was taking, and the sense of confusion and displacement was strong. I am still unsure whether this was a standard horror movie or a psychological journey of the main protagonist. And that is why I have given it a 5 rather than higher. If it was the first, it's a decent enough movie and does what it should. If it is the second, it is much better than that and this should've been more obvious at the end. My only other criticism is the same I have felt in the films of many of the GOT cast: why make her do a fake American accent? It would've made no difference to the plot if the character had been English, and the actress would've been more comfortable in her character which would've made a slightly better movie...

This is not a 'horror' as such. Instead it is a study of immortals trying to exist in modern times. It is extremely slow paced, so please do not watch if this is not your kind of film. The main protagonists are opposites in many ways, and the film explores the two very different ways of dealing with living for centuries. One explores art and literature, seeing only the positives. The other is depressed at the way humanity lives in modern times. The music throughout the film is beautiful and creates the slow-paced yet rich atmosphere. The acting is superb. I have given this a 5 as it is a middle of the road film: at some points wonderful; at others too pretentious. Although I enjoyed it, I feel that the characters could have been developed further, exploring more of their experiences over the centuries. At points, the characters become stereotypical which is a pity. It's a decent film with wonderful actors. But it could have been a great film...

I'm very surprised at the negative reviews of this series. I'm an avid horror fan and I have also watching all of The Walking Dead. However, I'm really enjoying this fresh look at a show which, although I like it, has pretty much stagnated. Yes, this new show has teething problems but the characterisation is engaging - I already care about what happens to them. Yes, there are stereotypes, but that's what TWD is build on and is loved for! In fact, the characters do not have the annoyingness of Carl or Lori. The actors are actually pretty good. Have no idea where the comments on 'bad acting' come from. I like the way the plot is developing, exploring what would happen at the beginning of an outbreak. The mise-en-scene is very like TWD with excellent lighting and sound. Ignore the negatives and take TWD back to the zombies!

I actually cannot believe how terrible this film actually was. I feel like I've just sat through about two hours of the same terrible song on repeat. In fact I feel like a need to wash my ears out after this! Now, don't get me wrong, I love the fairytale genre. For all those who are complaining that this is 'not a PG', they have obviously never read the Grimm et al original tales. Fairy tales have a lot of violence in them, there are sexual undertones and massive plot holes. In at least this way, the film was fine (yes, that is what happened to Cinderella's sisters in the original tale!). Even the actors tried their best. The problem with this film is the really badly written music and the fact that there are too many songs and not enough dialogue. Considering it is a musical, I would assume they may have worked more on that aspect. This is the kind of film that should've been great. And would've been great with better songs. What a disappointment. I can see children getting very bored with this as the music is so mundane and all sounds the same. They've really let themselves, the actors and the genre down.

This is the kind of film you can enjoy with no expectations. There are many genuine laughs while watching a group of excellent and largely serious actors having a bit of fun while sending themselves up. Helen Miren as always is fabulous while Hopkins plays down Hannibal. However, Malkovich steals the show. His comic timing is genius! Who cares that the plot is ridiculous and has more holes than Swiss cheese. So what that there appear to be many factual inaccuracies. Sometimes you just have to enjoy a film as it is and as it is supposed to be. If you can get past Mary Louise Parker's horrific plastic surgery (think this part could have been cast better) this is an enjoyable, genuinely funny film.

Having just watched this film I am actually shocked at the amount of negative reviews it has! I have just happily sat back and congratulated Abrams on keeping these films very much in keeping with the tone, mood and general world of the original. Those who have written these reviews seem to have watched only the series and not the films. They have forgotten that nearly all the films in this franchise were full of action, special effects and an antagonist. In fact, I suggest to them to rematch the older films then comment on this one! In actuality, the morality, humanity, politics and inter cast relationships have been lifted exactly from the original Star Trek film world. Abrams has really done his homework in regards to characterisation and setting. If you genuinely enjoyed the past Star Trek movies, you wil enjoy this one. If, however, your Star Trek universe only exists within the world of the series, then there will be too much action so go and watch the Next Generation reruns on TV instead.

Just watched this unexpected gem of a movie. Fair enough, it's no diamond. But it is a very enjoyable, well acted and well shot film. James McIlvoy makes a realistic frustrated cop although his character is not developed as well as it should be. In fact, that is the problem with this movie - the characterisation lacks the depth that would make this a fantastic movie instead of just a good one. The plot gets a bit rankled up with itself throughout and it is a bit predictable. However, it is better than many others on this genre and has all the pluses of the independent British film - underrated actors, atmospheric sets and even a 'nan'. And The Guvnor is in it...

A gangster movie where Sean Penn is the bad guy, where they use Tommy guns and set unusually in L.A.? And it a 'based on a true story' idea? Why not. Not, this is no Goodfellas etc. It will never be a classic but it is a fun, enjoyable ride to be on. So what it is full of clichés? Most movies in this genre are. The sets are fantastic, the misc en scene creates the necessary moody atmosphere and there is even an elderly gunslinger from a different age. It is engaging, the characterisation is just as you would want it and the plot is predictable and exciting. Peer your eyes away from Penn's pointless and ridiculous prosthetic nose, and Ryan Gosling's usual pointless and ridiculous acting, and enjoy this movie for what it is -a gangster movie.

As I have recently read the novel before watching the movie I feel that I can only critique the adaptation of the story rather that as a separate film. Before viewing I was intrigued by how a scriptwriter would fit the intricacies of the many narratives into one movie. I would not say I was disappointed. Each tale is told in snippets linked by similarities in plot while the writer has adapted more than a few details to work better as a film. (Which is something that should be admired. A movie is not an exact copy of a book. It is instead an adaptation of the story - a fact critics should remember!) The film is also beautifully shot with each time period portrayed in a visually wonderful way. Each actor is also very good although Berry and Hanks do not, I feel, have the scope to act in the differing ways required. This did not, however, have a negative affect on the film. Jim Broadbent Shows them up. However, there are some negatives to this movie. The first is unfortunately the prosthetics. Some are very well done but many could have been done better and somewhat ruins the visual experience of the film. In addition, the characters' stories have been largely condensed. I do not know how this stands as a movie independent from the novel as I have read it, however I think it may have translated better as a television series. I would have loved to see each character's story played out in similar detail to the book. It could have been very successful. Finally, be aware of the fact that the film has been 'Americanised'. In other words its plot has been smothered in unnecessary cheese. It is definitely a journey and the time flies by unnoticed. I would recommend the novel for the character and plot development. I think that the directors have done well with this movie but series would have excelled.

This was a surprising film in the sense that it was one that I had not heard of but came across on a movie channel. I began watching it and was hooked within minutes. Considering it was just one actor in a very restricted space, this movie held my attention throughout. I would say however that this was to do with the acting of the very under-rated Stephen Dorff rather than the particular plot. In regards to the plot, it was one of those 'could have been great' rather than was great as it was predictable in the sense that the holes were too obvious to conceal the ending. This was a disappointment as with a few subtle changes this could have been a fantastic movie. I am pleased however that I finally saw Dorff in a role where he actually gets the chance to showcase his acting abilities. I would recommend this film but it is not one I would watch again.

The other movies are OK. They stick to the original storyline and the acting was fine - it involved quite a few of my favourite actors. But for me, the movies lacked the engagement I had with the comics as a kid when Spiderman was my favourite superhero. Therefore I got bored to the point that I didn't even bother watching the third film. I am pleased to report that for me this is the Spiderman from the comics come to life on the big screen. Andrew Garfield plays the geeky, hopeless, clumsy hero who even though he has amazing powers, is still a nerd at heart. I did prefer Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin but I do love Rhys Ifans who does a great job. The storyline he is attached to is modern and relevant. Martin Sheen is always a pleasure to watch and I shed real tears when he inevitably dies. I had been put off by the last movies but this was much better than I expected. The only thing that puts me off is that Garfield looks so much like tennis player Andy Murray it's weird to see him smile...

I was actually looking forward to this film. I liked the idea of the extreme tourist visiting a post-nuclear town. Unfortunately this film failed in ALL aspects. The setting should be fantastically creepy and sinister. In fact, I am still wondering how any director could make this setting look bland and boring. It must be a skill. The characterisation is also sadly lacking. The relationships lack development and the characters are as bland as the setting. This is obviously a problem in a horror film when you actually don't care who lives and who dies. The horror aspect is also lacking. The 'creatures' are not seen enough to be scary but seen too much to be terrifying. And the plot... oh dear...

After enjoying the dystopian reality of the novel, I was unsure if this could be adapted into the medium of film. I was concerned that the story itself was just too long and in-depth for the time constraints of a movie. However, I was pleasantly surprised. Casting is genius, particularly with Donald Sutherland as President Snow and Woody Harrelson as Haymitch. Jennifer Lawrence plays an acceptable Katniss. The setting is well done without taking over the film. The Capital's garish clothes are perfect and contrast visually with the bland poverty of the districts. Surprisingly, the violence is not particularly watered down. It is instead inferred with the camera only viewing the before and after. This works well in a story where the violence is integral to the plot. The Hunger Games themselves are well done. The brutality is emphasised by the switches to the control room and the concentration on the 'game' aspect. There is thankfully very little obvious CGI which could have been overdone. My only negative comment about the film and the reason I did not award it 10 stars was because the lack of focus on the 'hunger' aspect of the society. In the novel, Katniss and Peeta gorge themselves on food. Unfortunately in the film, they do not. This means that the poverty of the districts is not viewed as extreme as it is supposed to be. The viewer cannot believe any people who have lived on the edge of starvation their whole lives would sit in a dining car full of food without eating it... In conclusion, The Hunger Games is an excellent adaptation of the novel. Actually one of the best film adaptations I have seen. Worth a look whether you have read the novel or not.

A creepy, atmospheric horror movie that holds the attention throughout. The characterisation is completely engaging creating vulnerable and interesting protagonists. The plot and the setting deals with our primordial fears of tight and underground spaces. The theme of missing loved ones is dealt with in a realistic and emotionally evoking manner. Yes, there is a part of the film that borders on the ridiculous but not enough to damage the movie as a whole. Absentia is not a jump out of your seat movie, nor is it a gore-fest. However, it is an enjoyable, spooky piece that takes you along for the ride and am sure will be something that will replay the next time I walk through an underground tunnel...

At first I thought it was the acting that was spoiling this well written film, then I actually realised that it was the shockingly bad direction. The camera angles and shots are actually worse than a bad Australian soap opera and make the interaction between the characters much poorer than it actually is. Again, this is a decently written plot with an important message behind it. However, the director and whoever actually gave this film to her should be completely ashamed of themselves. She has made this into a B movie due to her lack of understanding of basic shot, lighting and angle. In fact all elements of mise-en-scene. I have never seen a plot and actors destroyed so completely by a director. Completely disgraceful. A frustrating and unbelievable watch.