Change Your Image
TheAlmightyFinger
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Small Town Crime (2017)
Original and compelling
John Hawkes brings his character to life with a likable person, having dislikable habits and a not-so-glorious past. A perennial loser who actually manages to break the destiny laid out for him.
It is believable and realistic throughout the film and maintains it right up to the end. There are violent, bloody scenes (not gratuitous) and simple, natural human interaction. The antagonist is quite unique and is truly dislikable and threatening.
At no time does anything seem far-fetched. It is a grounded story of violence and redemption. John Hawkes is just so damn likeable as the main character. That is maybe the only unrealistic thing: there are so few of them in real life.
Warcraft (2016)
Critics sunk the much-needed sequel.
David Bowie's son Duncan Jones is the brilliant mind behind the film Moon (2009). It was also his debut film. Warcraft was his second.
I have watched this film 3 times over the past few years, and it never has lost its magic. The acting, story and visual effects are mind-blowing. It is dark and brutal, with a glimmer of hope. In contrast, Rotten Tomatoes and other "esteemed Hollywood critics" decided to bomb this film, with a ridiculous 29% rating. They were dark and brutal, without that glimmer of hope.
I know a bit about the background of this film, and that it was made outside of Hollywood structures, with major funding coming from China. It seems the only reason for them to be so unreasonably and selfishly venomous towards the film.
I have played the stand-alone game and liked it, but I am not a fanboy of the game. The film is an origin film, and the storyline is easy to follow, not so complicated as many critics allege. Duncan Jones is an extremely talented director, and I can only think how these reviews destroyed his intentions of a follow-up.
To give Warcraft 29%, and the infantile, by-the-numbers film Bumblebee (2018) 91%, you just know that RT is very much ROTTEN TO THE CORE.
The Holdovers (2023)
Hear me out
As of writing this, the film rating is 8.
It saddens me to find faults in a film that could have been a classic. The acting is perfect. The setting is perfect, as well as the premise, cinematography and pacing.
In the beginning, we are introduced to a group of characters, all likeable, with interesting flaws. After consolidating this variety of different personalities (an admirable achievement), the director decided to dump two thirds of them early in the film, never to return. So, we are stuck with a group of 3 characters, and two or three side-characters, to carry the rest of the film.
There are many promises of previously unthought-of romantic matchups, changing of worldviews, exciting, life-altering possibilities, all done very well and believable.
Where it went wrong:
In my opinion, there are two catastrophic failures: the first; not valuing the accumulated life experiences of the main characters to achieve any redemption, and secondly succumbing to an open-ended, underplayed finale, which does not complete any of the development arcs of the main players. Maybe he thought it was "artistic"?
Being invested in the characters, it is quite a negative ending. The plot continuously hints at a much better fate awaiting our heroes. The director could have added just 10 minutes to give his audience that straight-forward 'good feeling', without being contrived. It would have been an appropriate ending to a remarkable film. Instead, he decided to go for ambiguity where it really was not needed, especially in a film of this genre.
Slash 15 minutes off the ending of "Dead Poet's Society", and it might approximate the letdown that you might experience.
Cowboys & Aliens (2011)
Very Watchable
"The plot has been done many times before" and "Unoriginal plot" are terms that are thrown about randomly by a lot of self-important reviews. Let me tell you: I do not enjoy films that stray from the established rules of its world. This film does not stray. It is also a brilliant merging of two separate genres, never done before. And it has big-name actors that always deliver.
Sometimes you have to wonder: how can people criticize so heavily, when a film delivers on action, effects, believable characters, and PLOTLINE. Is it snobbery, or the simple case of entitled people having a platform to complain? I really cannot fathom the propensity to moan about all aspects of this film, from the peanut gallery.
Yes, it is a good plot and an original story, and a rousing one at that. Jon Farveau delivers his usual excellence. Not only a good actor, but a solid director.
I have rewatched this film about 5 times, and every time it was entertaining. That is an achievement very few films attain.
Song of the Sea (2014)
Art Masterpiece
It is a beautiful, original animation, accompanied by a stirring soundtrack. You have excellent voice-acting to complement the characters who convey a well-told, poignant story, almost as a folk tale. At the end, it moved me to tears.
It is in the same league as "Spirited Away", which is quite an amazing achievement from Ireland. The emotions and impact remain with you long after you have watched it, and it is the kind of film that can be viewed many times over.
What more can one say? I can confidently advise you to view this film, and just know it will make your day better.
The film won a well-earned Oscar.
Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One (2023)
What...A...Disappointment
I love all the MI films, except nr.2, directed by John Woo. Woo strayed too far from the formula and that is probably why he never directed another MI film.
This MI film is an unmitigated disaster. McQuarrie has made the strangest choices in this film, and yes, he strayed completely from the formula. Did he develop a swollen ego? It must be. I cannot think of any other reason why this bloated 163-minute "Part 1" would be so tepid.
Even the now obligatory Cruise death-defying stunt comes late in the film, and just does not have any tension or awe in it. It also has no reason to exist in the storyline. At least in MI:2, the movie kicked off with a breathtaking stunt from Mr. Cruise; freeclimbing a sheer cliff - the only reason to watch THAT misfire.
The reason MI films have been so successful, boils down to the following (in my opinion):
1. Antagonists are always believable and brutal. There is always a clearcut motivation for the badness. And they NEVER stand and smirk instead of killing, outline their whole dastardly plan for the hero, or deploy deviously stupid strategies for achieving their goals. (The unhinged vengefulness of Philip Seymor Hoffman in MI:3, is probably the pinnacle of bad guys.)
2. There is always a singular scene that knocks you out in terms of its originality (infiltrating the Kremlin in MI:4), or simply a Cruise death-defying stunt leaving you breathless (climbing the Burj Khalifa in MI:4, hanging from the side of a plane in MI:5).
3. The films never take themselves too seriously, and there is usually some comedy interspersed with the action sequences.
4. And of course, the high-tech gadgetry deployed.
This film does not have any of the above. It is just one elongated chase sequence, interrupted by cringeworthy conversations filled with "importance" and "gravity", with a fair bit of voice over to tell the audience what the hell is going on in the convoluted plot. Any levity seems to be totally forced and misplaced (the long chase sequence in the yellow mini car).
I can write a book on all the misfires, but I will stick to three relatively small, but highly irritating elements:
1. A group of characters will each voice one important line, in succession, seamlessly tying in with the line said before. What on earth was McQuarry thinking? NO-ONE TALKS LIKE THAT! Are all the characters suddenly telepathic?
2. The whole film is backtracked with incessant, pounding orchestral music, quite similar to movies from the 30's. There is no space for quieter moments or natural sound for building tension. You have to be "told" by the music how to interpret the scene.
3. Bad guys always gleefully grinning and pausing right before the possible "deathblow", giving our heroes just enough time to escape it.
Anyway. That's it. My opinion will just be drowned in the sea of people who really want this film to be good. In truth, it is not. At all.
The Mitchells vs the Machines (2021)
Propaganda for the masses
Great! I really needed to get a 114-minute sermon on "family values". I tried to give it a chance. At the end, I switched between almost falling asleep and irritation. I realised that THE MESSAGE is more important than the storyline. Forget about being entertained, as long as you understand THE MESSAGE, which is constantly spoon-fed to you by showing their home videos from "happier times".
The characters:
The whole family is goofy, with a sweet syrupy undertone that should endear them to you, if you have a blank, uncritical mind. Their interpersonal conflicts are mundane and devoid of any sting of reality.
The Storyline:
The plot is wafer-thin: AI is taking over the world and abducting humans for undisclosed purposes. Don't worry - they still have comfortable seating and internet access in their cube prisons, and only robots are harmed. But you need not dwell on those details. As long as you get THE MESSAGE.
This movie is just dumb and patronizing. It should entertain toddlers, with all the bright colours and zippy images. It might be cheaper and more educational just to buy your kid one of those turning flywheels that hang from the ceiling.
Thanks for nothing Netflix. You are giving Disney a run for their money, and that is setting the bar EXTREMELY low.
Strigoi (2009)
Strange film
This Romanian film (in English) has good acting and camerawork, quite a few memorable characters and universally strange plotting. I would have liked to score it higher, but it is a bit plodding. The actors speak English with a Romanian accent, but it is understandable.
The Strigoi is a Romanian-type vampire that does not adhere to the rules of the Anglo-Saxon one. This film, however, is less about vampires and more about odd interpersonal relationships, resentments, and traditions in a Romanian village.
Unfortunately the pacing is a bit slow and the thought-processes of some characters are unfathomable. If you are patient, you will be rewarded with a healthy dose of weirdness, a pretty good soundtrack and maybe a little insight into small-town Romanian culture.
Megamind (2010)
Reversal of Classic Superhero tropes
Megamind tries to present the viewpoint of the classic arch-villain in superhero movies. It is self-deprecating and very original for the genre. The protagonist (the person you should root for) is presented as the arch villain against the perfect "goody two shoes" hero adored by society.
What makes this cartoon special is that there is no 'switchback' where the hero suddenly demonstrates bad intentions or the 'antagonist' suddenly finds some higher meaning to be redeemed. That is the amazing Yin and Yang to experience in this cartoon. One exists because of the other, and has no purpose when isolated.
We get to know why MegaMind has grown up unfairly to be a underprivileged dick, but we also realise that he might have been a pretty productive member of society without the degradation that he received from the privileged 'hero' from kindergarten days.
I have to credit the characterization in this film. No black and white setups.The characters are totally believable in their inner conflicts and character progress. Even the main baddie is understandable in his own, self-gratifying way.
Well made, humoristic and worth your time.
Avengement (2019)
You can feel the punches
Not having seen anything that Scott Adkins has acted in, I approached this film with a somewhat open mind, and I was pleasantly surprised. The soundtrack and events in the opening sequences made the film feel almost like a French crime/noir from the 70's (in a good way).
The Scott Adkins character - a part-time boxer - tries to keep his nose clean, while having an influential older brother that is very successful in not keeping his nose clean. This results in the conflict and brutality that almost no on-screen person escapes. Not being a particular fan of martial arts movies, I found the fight sequences bone-crunching, believable and thrilling.
Even when he was fighting a crowd, there would never be the cop-out staging of each baddie waiting his turn (the actual one-on-one sequences were minimal). And throughout this hullabaloo of bullets, shattering chairs and swinging silver trays, the action seems logical and realistic. There is also a good and graphic backstory that gives a reason for Scott Adkin's mad dog behaviour.
Also pleasing was that everyone, down to the lowest scumbag, had his/her reasons to be what he/she is. No paper cut-outs to fill the story-line. The acting by the lead character was excellent and gloweringly underplayed. But when his fighting skills erupt - awesome.
The wholesome message that is ultimately conveyed - is that crime corrupts.
Side note: If you watch past the end credits, there is quite a funny scene right at the end. And 'Avengement' is actually an accepted word, strange as it may seem, meaning 'The inflicting of retributive punishment; satisfaction taken'.
Steve Jobs (2015)
Entertaining Biopic
Not knowing much about Steve Jobs and not having any strong feelings about Apples of any sort, I enjoyed this well-acted and decently paced film. Thankfully, it is not a hagiography, but well balanced, in illustrating his considerable flaws, as well as his single-minded drive and vision.
As for the extreme negative reviews, well what can one say? Apple fanboys....meh. They live in a reality of their own.
Heroes (2006)
Unbearably bad and disappointing
After the excellent first season, Tim Kring did the unthinkable: he went online and believed what deranged fanboys were saying. Not content to settle on, or develop the successful recipe of the first season, he wanted MORE. And his scriptwriters threw all the previous hard work out of the window, because that was what the people called for...NOT!
Irritating, lesser characters became main ones, and other subtler, more likable characters were written out. Plot did not matter. Nor did any loyalty in what had gone before. Their most important recipe for success was to pander to the masses. Well, how did that turn out?
Well, Tim Kring followed this up with three different series, with average to negative scores, none of which were extended beyond the second season.
Hopefully he will realize one day, that it is not that the viewers 'are not getting it', but rather himself 'not getting it'.
The Baytown Outlaws (2012)
Carnage with heart
A bloody, humorous, action-packed film with good acting that is well-paced. The lead characters are three violent brothers that initially come off as hillbilly psychopaths, but then their interpersonal relationships shine through. What really touched me, was their gradual acceptance of, and compassion towards a disabled teenager. That was done very well.
It is very irritating to read other reviews screaming 'Tarantinoesque!'. It is both insulting to Tarantino and this film. Mainly because of the guns, gangsters, violence, and crisp editing, these misguided souls think that this is the definition of Tarantino. Please, it is not, people! You might as well claim that it is Guy Ritchiesque; it would be just as far off the mark.
Tarantino has characters talking realistically about everyday things in an uniquely entertaining way, while doing (sometimes) dreadful things. That, to me, defines Tarantino's uniqueness. It has NOTHING to do (solely) with gun-play or gangsters.
In this film there is no idle chatter about irrelevant things. The film is pretty standard in terms of dialogue and character development. It stands on its own right as an action-driven blood fest. It is really only a wannabee Tarantino film, to those who do not know what the expression entails.
The Baytown Outlaws is definitely worth watching, if you can stomach a lot of violence.
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017)
Maybe misguided...but entertaining
This film by Guy Ritchie has a lot to commend it, but almost as much to dismiss it. I think the biggest mistake is that legend has been turned into myth. There is a significant difference between the two, in my opinion.
Had the plot remained within the realms of legend, with Guy Ritchie's treatment, it would have been a cult film. But, unfortunately the film descends into total fantasy, with a glut of supernatural creatures and explosive magic. So you are stuck with the one genre, that is probably the most predictable one, with the least suspense. I am not panning this film: it is entertaining. I just feel that an opportunity has been missed.
Pros: The soundtrack is thrilling and amazing, mixing medieval with contemporary. All the characters, even smaller roles, are believable and likable (or dislikable) as is required. The visuals and special fx are mostly very good. The editing, although maybe not really appropriate for a sword-and-sandal film, has Guy Ritchie's stamp all over it (i.e. very stylized, but good).
Cons: Well, the legend of King Arthur is open to interpretation, of course. General consensus has the king living in the late 5th and early 6th centuries. Vikings were first recorded in Britain in 793, about 300 years later. So including them in this narrative, is just one example where the director was purposefully disingenuous. Was it to simply to add some colour to the story? Why? King Arthur's legend has enough drama without including vikings. The period was the brutal dark ages, do you really have to invent anything else? There are, of course, many anachronistic weapons, armour, words, ethnicities, and social structures that firmly (and unnecessarily) removes a legend into the realms of total fantasy, which is unfortunate.
Verdict: Entertaining to watch once, if you do not expect any real substance.
Us (2019)
Total Stinker
I am not really baffled by the amazing rating that this film gets. Director Jordan Peele seems to a pet favourite of tinseltown, after his 'Get Out' success. He is such a favourite that he gets a free pass with this juvenile, predictable and clichéd mess that comprises 'Us'.
Come on, people! You have villains that make unnecessary speeches/illogical time-wasting actions every time a main character is at their mercy, but unimportant characters are conveniently and efficiently bumped off without said speeches or any formalities.
I can point you to hundreds of 3-star (or less) efforts that use exactly the same plot device. It is a puerile, adolescent technique that went out of fashion two decades ago. It is just lazy.
The characters are all one-dimensional. The plot is non-existent. The weird premise is simply nonsensical, and does not make anything mysterious or baffling, but simply stupid. There is nothing to understand, no hidden deeper meanings, nothing to figure out. Ooooh! And don't forget the obligatory scary twist at the ending, one that just makes no sense in terms of what has gone before.
What is going on here? Were you really scared? Were you really on the edge of your seat, rooting for the protagonists? Did you think, for one moment, that ANY of the main characters were in mortal danger? Really???
I enjoyed 'Get Out', but this film has absolutely zero redeeming qualities. It is just boring, boring, boring.
La cara oculta (2011)
Well done
This intriguing thriller is unpredictable and full of surprises. The main characters and their reactions are believable, even if they make bad decisions (don't we all?).
The story is about jealousy and regret, sprinkled with a fair amount of mystery, dread, humour and eroticism. The Spanish conductor, the vanishing girlfriend, the good Samaritan that wants more, the cop watching his unrequited love from the sidelines - all these characters seem real and original.
I enjoyed this film a lot.
The House That Jack Built (2018)
Very odd experience
Well, I am not particularly fond of slasher/gore movies, or ones about serial killers. I find Lars von Trier films difficult to watch, even if he is undeniably brilliant.
This film, however, was quite gripping for several reasons. If there is one director that can effectively portray the mind of a serial killer, then it would have to be an unconventional, uncompromising director like Lars von Trier.
Pros: Matt Dillon nails it as a remorseless, highly intelligent individual. You get to understand and abhor his total indifference to suffering. The film does not glorify his sickness or revel in his shocking deeds. It shows how a monster can exist and thrive in an uncaring, self-absorbed society, and also demonstrates the silliness and mundanity of narcissistic self-gratification.
The editing, visuals and acting are excellent. Pacing is fine, with one or two slight lags.
Cons: The camerawork was good, but had some unnecessary shakiness in some parts, and there is one scene where the camera movement had a psychopathy of its own. There is some bitingly dark humor, but it is probable that not many people would appreciate it.
Overall I can understand that the brutality of the film, mirrors the brutality of the main character. It is definitely not a family outing. If you are game for an intelligent dissection of what makes a psychopath tick, I think you would enjoy this.
Babe (1995)
It will moisten the eyes of the hardest man
There are only a handful of films that manage to have a profound emotional impact on the viewer. This is one of them. "Babe" aced so many different aspects of film-making, that to mention them in my comment would take up too much space. Enough reviews exist to give the details.
The standout aspects of this brilliant movie (for me), are the charming character of the pig, the voice-acting of the other animals, the farmer (excellently played by James Cromwell), and the cerebral script that manages to be as entertaining for adults as it is for children. The soundtrack is amazing, and the cinematography beautiful.
I have watched this film several times over the years, and it has not aged the slightest. Its disarming message of hope is as relevant today, as it has ever been.
You will feel warm and fuzzy all over, without feeling guilty about it.
The Gunman (2015)
Not as bad as some would make out
The plot was a bit generic, but Sean Penn is on top form and the supporting cast serviceable.
Camerawork and pacing was fine. Very good and somewhat brutal fight sequences.
The film garnered unfair criticism and I found it quite enjoyable.
How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World (2019)
Hahaha...no
Here you have a band of Laurel & Hardy vikings led by a teenager, with no abilities but the fact that he is friends with the most potent dragon. You are asked to laugh at their infantile antics and croon at the cuteness overload of the dragons. At least 20 minutes of the film is spent on a courtship ritual between 2 dragons.
The "leader" of the vikings bumbles along for comic effect, making poor decisions all the time. He has feeble fighting skills and zero leadership skills. All his followers are asked to "believe" in him, and they do without any question. What kind of message does this convey?
The orchestral music never lets up throughout the movie, just to make sure that you understand what you are supposed to be feeling. I couldn't believe it. It just never stops!
The mass of 10-star ratings by once-off reviewers really demeans the credibility of IMDB. This film is not a 10 by any stretch of the imagination, even as a kiddie film.
Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013)
Witch Hunters? Uhhhh...
A fairy tale should get more leeway, sometimes more than it deserves, but there is just so much wrong with this film. And it has nothing to do with genre-mixing or the anachronistic dialogue/weaponry.
Let us recap:
1. Gemma Arterton has two expressions throughout the whole film: neutral (pouting) and smiling (most of the time when she really shouldn't be).
2. The accents are all over the place; for some reason Gemma (a British actress) has an American accent, some townspeople have a slightly Germanic accent, and some have British accents. They are all from the same region! Lazy directing.
3. The witch hunters have an array of advanced weapons and no other notable skills, except maybe some immunity against spells, which is never properly explained. Even their fighting skills are pretty average, which means they get beat up quite a lot, but never take any serious damage to their egos or bodies.
4. They incessantly crack jokes and deliver one-liners when in battle - even when getting their collective a**es kicked. There goes the suspense, or fear for the safety of our heroes.
5. The whole plot of the film revolves around witches trying to get immunity from fire (to become immortal!), but most of them get killed by gunshots or falling objects. So what is the point?
6. Oh, and if you are the most powerful witch in the movie, please try and slug it out with fisticuffs and/or throttle the heroes in the final showdown. Don't use a shred of your magic. And EVERY time you have a real opportunity to kill them, slow down your approach and start smirking, talking and threatening. Just long enough for someone else, to thwart your evil plans.
7. If you are a hero, ALWAYS warn the witch before you attack, by saying the equivalent of "Hands Up". Yes, that makes a lot of sense. You burn all witches regardless, but you insist in giving them a chance to surrender?
8. Finally, as a hero, make sure to posture first, before attacking. That makes you look so cool!
There are many, many more flaws to point out. But I am bored by this sloppy movie with its pretty cgi. It was not fun at all. With all the resources at their disposal, the scriptwriter and director turned out to be quite useless.
I will leave you with a final question:
Can Peter Stormare play any character BESIDES Peter Stormare?
Forever Strong (2008)
Nope
Rugby films are so scarce and I really wanted to enjoy this one. I even like the actor that plays the lead role. So what went wrong? I have to blame the director and his idea of character development.
The lead character starts off as slightly disagreeable and then evolves into a proper a**hole, with no redeeming qualities. This is how he remains for over half the film, but everyone gives him a break - which he never reciprocates. Then, surprise! He suddenly has a change of heart and becomes team captain and a thoroughly wholesome bloke.
This is not redemption. Redemption implies unflattering introspection. It implies humility. Before you can redeem yourself, you firstly have to fall from grace. Does our hero ever lose anything significant? No. Is he ever cast out by his peers and society? Hardly. Did he have to sacrifice anything dear to him? No.
So Mr. Director, how on earth can I root for an unlikable, arrogant guy who is NOT an underdog, and has not been challenged by any significant obstacles? He just becomes everybody's favourite person, without doing anything out of the ordinary. Why?
Bumblebee (2018)
Boring, predictable and stupid
I have never seen any Transformer films. Bumblebee is supposed to be a "better" version of the Transformers. Well, I thank my lucky stars for never seeing any of them, because this film is simply terrible.
The script was written by someone with the mentality of a 12-year old. Plot-holes galore. The lead characters made themselves totally unlikable through their own stupid, illogical actions. I couldn't even root for the baddies, because they were even dumber.
This film is a mess, but surprise, surprise: certain influential sites gave it a 93% rating. I wonder why? Something is rotten in Hollywood.
Severance (2006)
Understated and intelligent
Make no mistake...this movie presents a fair amount of carnage and grisly endings. But the reason many gore-hounds might dismiss the film and compare it unfavourably to splatters like "Creep" and "Hostel", is because "Severance" avoids full nastiness and spraying guts with clever writing/editing. All the characters are quite likable AND MOSTLY AVOID DOING STUPID THINGS, and every death is unique and rather poignant.
In general, the film is to be commended for presenting many horror cliches, but then circumventing "what is expected" with intelligent resolutions. The Laura Harris character even comments wryly in one scene: "I don't want to be blamed later for not finishing him off", before blasting a baddie's head to bits (referencing a lazy and irritating plot device that exists in so many horror films, where the bad guy revives and continues to sow havoc).
The film was funny, scary and well-paced. I really enjoyed it and hope that you will too.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
Silly, in a bad way
This film is simply ridiculous, with infantile plot-lines and overbearing "winks at the camera". This insincere, money-grubbing effort was really the only film I ever felt like walking out of after 20 silly, silly minutes. Instead I stuck it out for a morbidly painful 122 minutes.
This exercise convinced me that George Lucas is useless as a story-teller and should never have been allowed out of the special FX department. Steven Spielberg should be ashamed for pandering to his talentless friend.
This film was offensively mediocre, but at least I will never again waste my precious time on the silliness that roams in the mind of George Lucas.