From the first scene I knew I was going to hate this series. Gorgeous Mummy tells Gorgeous husband and Gorgeous daughter that she has no choice but to join a Gorgeous hipster crew and fly off into space to rescue the planet. A glossy fluffy weightless plot to go with Gorgeous fluffy characters. They've even fallen for the old 'the only smart 'geeky' one on the crew is the fat one' trap. Is this really what you are spending your millions on Netflix? You can do better - I've seen it. Please do so.
Reviews
16 Reviews
Guardians of the Galaxy
(2014)
Anyone who gave this over 5 stars is wrong
14 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I went into this movie'with high hopes. I'd seen positive reviews and heard it favourably compared with Serenity - a particularly favourite of mine. I left the cinema bored and irritated. This film was so derivative, frankly I'm surprised that anyone gave it more than 5 stars. Opening scene? Indiana Jones and the lost Ark. Badies? A leather clad Darth Vader with runny mascara. Emperor? Check. Secret about the father? Check.
People have said that they felt the characters were fleshed out.. Are you out of your minds? "I lost my mother". "Really? I lost my wife and child" "That's nothing. I was cut up and put back together so many times AND I was bullied". "Well I used to be a shrub and was transplanted without permission". The special affects were massive and continuous and - in the end dulled the senses. There was the inevitable Ninja babe and cutesy furry character. No one meaningful died apart from Darth who got fried in blue fire.. why he didn't just grab on and share the magic I don't know. Lastly there was no sense of tension. We all knew that the goodies were going to survive. There's a sequel to make right? I could go on and on but I won't. I went to see this in hope. I won't be seeing the next one unless Joss Whedon is put in charge. Sigh another wasted two hours of my life.
People have said that they felt the characters were fleshed out.. Are you out of your minds? "I lost my mother". "Really? I lost my wife and child" "That's nothing. I was cut up and put back together so many times AND I was bullied". "Well I used to be a shrub and was transplanted without permission". The special affects were massive and continuous and - in the end dulled the senses. There was the inevitable Ninja babe and cutesy furry character. No one meaningful died apart from Darth who got fried in blue fire.. why he didn't just grab on and share the magic I don't know. Lastly there was no sense of tension. We all knew that the goodies were going to survive. There's a sequel to make right? I could go on and on but I won't. I went to see this in hope. I won't be seeing the next one unless Joss Whedon is put in charge. Sigh another wasted two hours of my life.
Indiana Hobbit
12 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I am a Tolkien fan having read LOTRs and The Hobbit many times (over 20). I loved Peter Jackson's LOTRs trilogy despite his skateboarding Legolas and slapstick version of Gimli. Gollum was one of the greatest characterisations I have ever seen.
So full marks for The Hobbit then? No - not at all.
The pre-release posters gave a strong hint of what was to come. The Hobbit is a childs book but the lighting on the posters was like something out of Gone With The Wind. Uh-oh, I thought. Jackson's gone epic.
To begin with think Martin Freeman was a mistake. He does a great job at being Martin Freeman the Hobbit - but he just isn't Bilbo. The dwarfs a pretty good but they don't really come over as grim tough fighting types. More like comic stuntmen. Was it really necessary to 'personality' them up to that extent? Thank God that Del Toro didn't get his steam punk way so I will forgive Jackson for things like axes sticking out of heads and Thorin's 'I just come from the hairdressers' look. The Hobbit book is funny but for me the humour in Jackson's version just doesn't match the tone of the movie. A bit like all the Gimli jokes in the LOTR. It's just out of place. The special effects are terrific with Gollum the star again. - but there's too many of them necessitated by Jacksons need to 'big' everything up. Hollywood pressure? The dishwashing scene could have been done with clever camera work and loads of unbreakable dishes instead Jackson felt the need to turn it into a football trick session with the CGI obvious. There was no tension to the scene as we all knew the dishes weren't real. Small effects also seemed hamfisted. Bilbo running to catch the dwarfs seemed to be wearing swimming flippers instead of Hobbit feet. I don't ever remember thinking that in LOTR. Why oh why must there always be sliding scenes ala Spielberg. There have been three already. And the done to death ' grab on by one hand and amazingly pull someone to safety' stunt. I'm not sure Jackson has an original bone in his directing body. Everything in the movie I've seen a thousand times before. I guess my biggest complaint against the movie is the starring of characters that have almost no part in the book. Talking Radagast the Brown and the Pale Ork here. Ridiculously overplayed and turned me from a Jackson fan to a Jackson doubter. Was it really necessary to have completely new characters in the film? Only if there's a need to increase the drama - a need to add special effects to appeal to an audience used to seeing explosions and chases and baddies. And why oh why did the head goblin have a posh accent? For God sake. I could go on - the Troll who was feminine - Galadriel turning on some kind of potters wheel and almost falling over her spiralling dress. The sledge race - and so on and so on. When you think about it Jackson hasn't made a great movie since LOTRs. King Kong was awful, Lovely Bones a flop - The critics don't like the Hobbit - look at the Meta score and I agree. I'm not so sure he's anything more then a average director carried along by his success with LOTR. Which is disappointing, 'cause he's a Kiwi - like me. Final verdict? Could do so much better (I hope)
So full marks for The Hobbit then? No - not at all.
The pre-release posters gave a strong hint of what was to come. The Hobbit is a childs book but the lighting on the posters was like something out of Gone With The Wind. Uh-oh, I thought. Jackson's gone epic.
To begin with think Martin Freeman was a mistake. He does a great job at being Martin Freeman the Hobbit - but he just isn't Bilbo. The dwarfs a pretty good but they don't really come over as grim tough fighting types. More like comic stuntmen. Was it really necessary to 'personality' them up to that extent? Thank God that Del Toro didn't get his steam punk way so I will forgive Jackson for things like axes sticking out of heads and Thorin's 'I just come from the hairdressers' look. The Hobbit book is funny but for me the humour in Jackson's version just doesn't match the tone of the movie. A bit like all the Gimli jokes in the LOTR. It's just out of place. The special effects are terrific with Gollum the star again. - but there's too many of them necessitated by Jacksons need to 'big' everything up. Hollywood pressure? The dishwashing scene could have been done with clever camera work and loads of unbreakable dishes instead Jackson felt the need to turn it into a football trick session with the CGI obvious. There was no tension to the scene as we all knew the dishes weren't real. Small effects also seemed hamfisted. Bilbo running to catch the dwarfs seemed to be wearing swimming flippers instead of Hobbit feet. I don't ever remember thinking that in LOTR. Why oh why must there always be sliding scenes ala Spielberg. There have been three already. And the done to death ' grab on by one hand and amazingly pull someone to safety' stunt. I'm not sure Jackson has an original bone in his directing body. Everything in the movie I've seen a thousand times before. I guess my biggest complaint against the movie is the starring of characters that have almost no part in the book. Talking Radagast the Brown and the Pale Ork here. Ridiculously overplayed and turned me from a Jackson fan to a Jackson doubter. Was it really necessary to have completely new characters in the film? Only if there's a need to increase the drama - a need to add special effects to appeal to an audience used to seeing explosions and chases and baddies. And why oh why did the head goblin have a posh accent? For God sake. I could go on - the Troll who was feminine - Galadriel turning on some kind of potters wheel and almost falling over her spiralling dress. The sledge race - and so on and so on. When you think about it Jackson hasn't made a great movie since LOTRs. King Kong was awful, Lovely Bones a flop - The critics don't like the Hobbit - look at the Meta score and I agree. I'm not so sure he's anything more then a average director carried along by his success with LOTR. Which is disappointing, 'cause he's a Kiwi - like me. Final verdict? Could do so much better (I hope)
Star Trek Into Darkness
(2013)
Nothing new - cliché, cliché, cliché
18 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
to begin with I enjoyed the previous movie - it was fresh, well done and the characters played perfectly. Fine, I sat with anticipation hoping the latest instalment would leave me as thrilled as the last one. Having watched the promos I was expecting ruin to be rained down upon the earth by a vengeful Cumberbatch with Kirk and his crew saving the world after a terrible battle. What we got instead was a clichéd mix of set pieces seen a thousand times before dressed up in some very impressive special effects. First Cumberbatch is evil incarnate, then he a good guy who saves Kirk and Co. from the Klingons - then he's on the good guy's side, no wait! It's a clever trick, then he's a baddie again. Hanging by one hand from falling platform? check, being rescued from said situation by a one handed grab, check and in fact check again. Big punch up on moving platform, check and check again. Baddies who always miss and goodies who never miss, check. This movie was one of the few where my score dropped the longer I watched. the first quarter? Hmmmm, not bad 7/10. The middle part - whoops maybe not so great - 6/10. The 3rd quarter - not really enjoying this any more - 5/10... The last quarter, with the Spock fist fight and Jim being revived - should have ended up on the editing room floor.. 4/10 I can't believe this movie scored so highly on IMDb. Over and Out!
Carnage
(2011)
stage drama on film
30 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Even the opening scene bothered me. It had a strange artificiality. Americana on display. I thought this film seemed like an amateur stage play brought to the big screen. The whole premise seemed mildly ridiculous. The protagonists were cardboard caricatures the actors struggled to flesh out, characters they didn't really believe in. The scripted mechanisms to keep the couples in the same room verged on the farcical. Just leave for God sake! And if someone kept taking calls in the middle of a serious conversation that many times? People wouldn't just sit meekly and wait for him. With these actors, come on, you can do better.
Anyway my score reflects how I felt about it.
Anyway my score reflects how I felt about it.
The Dark Knight Rises
(2012)
Poor, poor, Mr Nolan
25 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I went into the cinema with heightened expectations. I'd enjoyed the previous two Nolan efforts and was impressed with the Knight rises trailer. Here we go, I thought, more of the same but even better. How wrong I was. First hour - lots of talking, nothing wrong with that - setting the scene - sit tight, wait for the fun to start. Little things started to niggle. The fight scenes seemed artificial - badly choreographed. Nolan seemed to want to bring Batman out into the daylight and turn him into a brawler with the baddies running up one at a time to be hit.
I thought Bane was an excellent Baddie, ruthless, strong, intelligent. The Plot was fine - the other characters sufficient - the devil for me was in the detail.
Gotham was in lock-down for how long? The cops were trapped underground for - months was it? Weeks anyway. They came out of there hole looking shiny and new. Blake's partner emerges with his shaven head perfectly razor-ed - Did anyone else notice the hair? Everybody had a perfect haircut the entire length length of the movie.
I think the biggest disappointment for me was the lack of tension. Batman was going to survive, Catwoman was going to save Batman, the bomb was going to be made safe - Bruce Wayne would see another film made etc. etc. With comic book film franchises I suppose this inevitable but the way Nolan went about it was arse numbingly tedious.
Nolan - go and stand in the corner with Lucas and Cameron - Damn it! Another £15 wasted.
I thought Bane was an excellent Baddie, ruthless, strong, intelligent. The Plot was fine - the other characters sufficient - the devil for me was in the detail.
Gotham was in lock-down for how long? The cops were trapped underground for - months was it? Weeks anyway. They came out of there hole looking shiny and new. Blake's partner emerges with his shaven head perfectly razor-ed - Did anyone else notice the hair? Everybody had a perfect haircut the entire length length of the movie.
I think the biggest disappointment for me was the lack of tension. Batman was going to survive, Catwoman was going to save Batman, the bomb was going to be made safe - Bruce Wayne would see another film made etc. etc. With comic book film franchises I suppose this inevitable but the way Nolan went about it was arse numbingly tedious.
Nolan - go and stand in the corner with Lucas and Cameron - Damn it! Another £15 wasted.
The Double Life of Véronique
(1991)
It's rare I walk away
18 January 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I hated this movie from the get go. The artificiality of the characters the silly dream like atmosphere. The production design immediately irritated me.
From the very first scene!
The fake singing voice - the green/red lighting - the shallow characterisation - I'm so sick of unbelievably beautiful woman, perfect faces, perfect bodies, perfect make up. They wake up looking beautiful - never fail to have a beautiful mutual orgasm with a gorgeous lover. Yuk, yuk,yuk, yuk YUK!
Last night we watched "A separation" (Iranian) which was astounding
From the very first scene!
The fake singing voice - the green/red lighting - the shallow characterisation - I'm so sick of unbelievably beautiful woman, perfect faces, perfect bodies, perfect make up. They wake up looking beautiful - never fail to have a beautiful mutual orgasm with a gorgeous lover. Yuk, yuk,yuk, yuk YUK!
Last night we watched "A separation" (Iranian) which was astounding
- watch that, bin this
The Apple
(1998)
wonderful - see it!
27 November 2011
Warning: Spoilers
From the beginning I was enchanted by this movie. I was worried over the story line as I'm rather sensitive to films about kids being abused so I was getting ready to be upset by it but the assured directing, the wonderful naturalness of the acting - not to mention the balanced story telling settled me down. The fact that the Father and Mother weren't monsters but ignorant with misguided principles based around fear of the outside world helped me to get over my initial worries and I ended up thoroughly enjoy it. It's rare I give a movie over 7.5 but this one absolutely deserves the 8. In fact I would like to give it 8.5 but the IMDb system doesn't allow it.
Take Shelter
(2011)
ate hugely left empty
25 November 2011
Warning: Spoilers
The first half of this movie was great with a strange threatening atmosphere and a rising sense of tension. The second half was way too long - the tension drawn out to the point of ridiculousness. This type of movie relies on the protagonist not being able to verbalise their anxieties. What about just saying - "I'm having these terrible dreams and don't know whether I'm going round the bend or am the next Noah - hey, call me crazy".
Nope, the hero has to hold everything inside so driving everybody else crazy. The inevitable long suffering wife - the best friend (betrayed of course) The road to ruin..
I also loved the way all the characters were talking about potential economic difficulties and driving petrol hogging trucks
Not that I didn't enjoy the movie, or at least the first half, I would have preferred the director to shave 30 minutes off and ratchet up the tension to a more satisfying climax (And I don't mean a Hollywood style climax with the house and garden being invaded and everything blowing up.)
Verdict: Wait for the DVD
Nope, the hero has to hold everything inside so driving everybody else crazy. The inevitable long suffering wife - the best friend (betrayed of course) The road to ruin..
I also loved the way all the characters were talking about potential economic difficulties and driving petrol hogging trucks
Not that I didn't enjoy the movie, or at least the first half, I would have preferred the director to shave 30 minutes off and ratchet up the tension to a more satisfying climax (And I don't mean a Hollywood style climax with the house and garden being invaded and everything blowing up.)
Verdict: Wait for the DVD
The Kids Are All Right
(2010)
Purile nonsense
27 October 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Why do so many American family dramas portray life in this way - Essentially all the family members have issues but, at core, are decent warm sensitive human beings, Yuk, yuk, yuk. There was not one moment in this entire movie where (non-American dream) reality peeped in. Why do all the kids have rooms the size of football fields - the beautiful house, big car, a truck? Why did Mark Ruffalo need to be so successful? He could have worked in a supermarket and have been a nobody. It would have been more interesting,and why did he need to be surrounded by babes. Why was the daughter an A grade student and the son finding his way to common sense at 15? Such an American bubble. Family life can have conflicts that are never resolved - three nights on the couch doesn't generally mean that your life partner forgives you for the greatest betrayal. The kids are far more likely to be like their friends then the 'little angels' as portrayed. The acting was professional, as you would expect, but the story pure saccharine. It's the way the American audience wants life to be and not the way it is. Very disappointed.
True Grit
(2010)
silly mistakes
15 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Let's see, a highly experienced man-hunting US Marshall along with a Texas Ranger (think Super Sheriff) are tracking a killer. They only know the killer is somewhere ahead. It is night. They have a raging fire going, are talking in loud voices and sleep without a sentry but they do lay a rope to keep any snakes out. Oh please...
How exactly was the guy hung so high in the tree? Someone get him to climb it? Someone climbed in their cowboy boots and dropped the rope over the branch? Perhaps they trained a squirrel? Stupid scene.
In the scene near the cabin waiting for the gang. The girl and Marshall are chatting away loudly not even watching the road, all the shooting before hand has gone unheard - though it would have been audible for miles... After the ambush they go back into the cabin and sleep soundly with the Marshall getting totally wasted on whisky. No sentries are set again (sigh).
The character at the end hit by the Ranger sits perfectly still after being hit by a high calibre bullet - not thrown off his horse as would happen.
Little Blackie runs for three weeks loaded with two people - horses can gallop about three miles before being fatigued. Rooster carry's the girl in his arms for miles - in fact he trots with her....Any one try this? I managed about 200 metres once.
C'mon Cohens leave the Westerns to yester-year or at least try and do something as good as Unforgiven. And I'm a Cohen fan!
Report card: Can do better...
How exactly was the guy hung so high in the tree? Someone get him to climb it? Someone climbed in their cowboy boots and dropped the rope over the branch? Perhaps they trained a squirrel? Stupid scene.
In the scene near the cabin waiting for the gang. The girl and Marshall are chatting away loudly not even watching the road, all the shooting before hand has gone unheard - though it would have been audible for miles... After the ambush they go back into the cabin and sleep soundly with the Marshall getting totally wasted on whisky. No sentries are set again (sigh).
The character at the end hit by the Ranger sits perfectly still after being hit by a high calibre bullet - not thrown off his horse as would happen.
Little Blackie runs for three weeks loaded with two people - horses can gallop about three miles before being fatigued. Rooster carry's the girl in his arms for miles - in fact he trots with her....Any one try this? I managed about 200 metres once.
C'mon Cohens leave the Westerns to yester-year or at least try and do something as good as Unforgiven. And I'm a Cohen fan!
Report card: Can do better...
Horrible Bosses
(2011)
terrible movie - thank God I didn't pay to see it.
12 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Got to see this as a free preview - had no expectations - for some reason thought it might be good. From the get go it was terrible. The characters were empty stereotypes - the plot ridiculous - the humour vacuous - for god sake, can they really not produce some better? All the stereotypes were out in force. There was the executives - all white. Their beautiful wives/babes/babe-courier, all white - the token black in the roughest bar in town - all black. The car auto pilot (taxi driver) Asian.
The only humour was slapstick and bad slapstick - sticking someone's toothbrush up your arse to reek revenge typical. The 'shock' elements were women saying dirty words out loud - wow. Ground breaking.
Don't waste your money, tooth enamel on this movie - go outside dig a hole, and then fill it in. A far better use of your time.
The only humour was slapstick and bad slapstick - sticking someone's toothbrush up your arse to reek revenge typical. The 'shock' elements were women saying dirty words out loud - wow. Ground breaking.
Don't waste your money, tooth enamel on this movie - go outside dig a hole, and then fill it in. A far better use of your time.
The Woodsman
(2004)
brave, brave movie
26 January 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this movie with a certain amount of nervousness as I knew something of the plot. I found watching it very uncomfortable as it showed a man still suffering from his 'urges' and several scenes showing him stalking a young girl. All beautifully designed by the cast to discomfort the audience and admirably successful. The resolving of his character flaws and 'what happens next' along with the beautifully balanced plot and characters makes it one of the bravest movies I have ever seen. Half wits will rate this film down due to its subject matter - see it, if you have an ounce of character - you'll love it. More please.
Flipped
(I) (2010)
Dire white wholemeal trash...
9 January 2011
Warning: Spoilers
From the moment the characters in this movie said their first lines I hated this film. 7 year old kids with perfect complexions (All white by the way) thinking like mature adults? - not a spiteful bone in their bodies (Just misguided - of course) Perfect kids, a perfect fake tree, with a sickeningly perfect All American view over a perfect All American countryside. A wise old grandfather A harmless (See Rainman) disabled loving brother - Good God you people gave this movie over 7? Are you insane? It's rare for me to hate a movie from the get go but this one is going straight into my "Complete Trash file" Don't watch it - ever...
Astro Boy
(2009)
something is missing
4 December 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The first thing that struck me about this film was the terrible voice casting. Nicholas Cage doesn't have an acting bone in his body and yet he plays the emotional part of a father who loses his son (and then rejects another). Bill Nighy plays a strangely muted part and the voice of Donald Sutherland as President Stone is too old for the character and lifeless.
The animation is acceptable but the story nonsense. A new mega-powerful source of energy has been discovered and divided into blue and red, good/bad. The blue (promising the Green lobby unlimited clean power) is going to be put into a new robot design but the president decides on the red (Bad) instead creating a monster - of course. In the battle with the now monstered robot Cage's son is killed. His reaction to this is summarised by a completely inadequate "Oh, no! My son has been killed - I can rebuild him. I won't sleep or eat until it's done"! Back of hand on forehead - Oh woe is me kind of thing. Awful, Awful, Awful. He then rejects his rebuilt son - without almost any angst at all. Did they tailor this plot to the cast's acting abilities?
The inevitable story unfolds - with the evil president chasing the boy for his power source and the boy joining a "rebel" group on the polluted earth, lots of meaningless battles, big boss battle to end and so on blah, blah, blah.
Essentially anything with Mr Cage in it gets a leery reaction from me but I'm always ready to try. This film is a lifeless waste of animators time and I'm sure most of the actors hurried away from it to do better things.
Don't bother with it...
The animation is acceptable but the story nonsense. A new mega-powerful source of energy has been discovered and divided into blue and red, good/bad. The blue (promising the Green lobby unlimited clean power) is going to be put into a new robot design but the president decides on the red (Bad) instead creating a monster - of course. In the battle with the now monstered robot Cage's son is killed. His reaction to this is summarised by a completely inadequate "Oh, no! My son has been killed - I can rebuild him. I won't sleep or eat until it's done"! Back of hand on forehead - Oh woe is me kind of thing. Awful, Awful, Awful. He then rejects his rebuilt son - without almost any angst at all. Did they tailor this plot to the cast's acting abilities?
The inevitable story unfolds - with the evil president chasing the boy for his power source and the boy joining a "rebel" group on the polluted earth, lots of meaningless battles, big boss battle to end and so on blah, blah, blah.
Essentially anything with Mr Cage in it gets a leery reaction from me but I'm always ready to try. This film is a lifeless waste of animators time and I'm sure most of the actors hurried away from it to do better things.
Don't bother with it...
The Hangover
(2009)
Probably the 3rd worse movie I've ever seen
19 June 2009
Considering the hype and 4 star reviews I went to this movie hoping for something more then a remake of Swingers and more adult then the endless juvenile 'we're going to swear and talk about gay things to shock the audience' movies that seem to be prolific at the moment - I can honestly say I didn't smile once during the whole movie - and I loved Swingers! Getting embarrassed over a breast feeding Mother and an elderly patients butt - Oh please! Hollywood needs to grow up - they were making movies like this when I was in my teens (Porky's) - get your noses out of your school boy fantasies and try and make a decent movie next time will you? Something with a little wit and intelligence if you don't mind.
Tell Your Friends