Reviews written by registered user

Page 1 of 13:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
122 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Dreadful, 27 August 2017

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

What was the point of this film. Okay, yes, I know make some more money.

The opening sequence set the tone, apparently everyone is now invincible, it doesn't matter if they are thrown around, eaten or hit trees at 300 mph, everything is fine.

Once you remove any semblance of reality from the story, it fails, no one cares any more, as there is no tension or surprise any more.

The film focuses on very bad, cheap laughs and is very boring.

Just some explosions, no story and poor humour. Simply a crap, pointless film that isn't even enjoyable in any way.

Can someone explain how Vin Diesel gets a credit on this film? The little plant says one phrase only and in a high pitched voice, why do you employ Vin Diesel for that!

5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
One the worst, inaccurate and biased documentaries ever, 11 August 2017

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Quite a lot to say on this subject and documentary.

There's a huge amount of non-science in this documentary and the bold claims towards the end of film, are ridiculous and complete nonsense. Any documentary needs to be balanced and needs to challenge itself, unfortunately this one has a clear almost militant vegan/vegetarian agenda to push. It doesn't allow any counter view from real scientists.

One point I do agree with is in America you have a lobbying system which is where big business is able to influence policy so much, laws and decision aren't always taken in the best interests of the people. This should be changed.

It's also true Nutritional science, is a bit of a mess, countless studies contradicting other studies, mostly these studies are agenda based, statistical and only use correlation. These should always be ignored. Any study that says it increases something by a percentage is probably misleading. If your risk of cancer goes from 0.001 to 0.002 that's a 100% increase, but still no real risk.

I will cover a couple of contradictions and non-truths here:

Claim, Breast feeding has low protein content, which is the normal human diet, so not needed in the food chain. Answer, well breast milk is very high in fat and saturated fat, which you've just told us, is bad for us, so which is it?

Claim we are not Omnivores & body designed for eating vegetables. Answer, yes, we are, in fact one of the only reasons we evolved from Apes, is because we ate meat and specifically cooked meat, allowing us to reduce our stomach size, gut length and increase our brain size. Chimps, our closest ancestor, eat meat.

Claim, Female doctor said a plant based diet, reduces, diabetes, heart disease & cancer. Answer, not true, Cancer rates are not effected in anyway and in some studies, show and increased cancer rate in Vegetarians.

Claim, Sugar is not absorbed or stored by the body. Answer, complete rubbish, if that were truth, no one would get fat eating sugar or carbs! Excess energy is stored in the fat cells of the body, hence why you get fat.

There is a simple way to show this whole documentary, is nonsense, which doesn't require a study or paper. Just look at the Maasai or the French; The French diet is basically Fish, Red Meat, Processed Meats, Cheese and Wine. Yet they have a very low incidence of heart disease. The Maasai, eat only Meat, Milk and Blood, yet have low rates of illness and heart disease.

The guys who put forward the idea of fish being bad for you, because if you put it in a blender, it wouldn't look appetising, really, that's an argument, for not eating fish!

Ask yourself, how many cave paintings feature a lettuce?

Terrible film that makes the worst mistake you can make in documentary, have a point of view and agenda and then deliberately gear the evidence to back up that view.

I see some people here have given it 5 stars and referred to it as the truth, please look at the evidence before praising this film.

The Circle (2017/I)
5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Great subject matter, but fails to make its point., 10 August 2017

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

So we've got a number of issues at play here:

- Social Media - Big Data - Privacy - Mob Rule

All interesting social subjects, which could be addressed in various interesting ways, unfortunately this move, really fails to address any of them adequately. The pacing of the film is all wrong, way too much time is taken to set-up the story and then hardly any time for the "pay off", if you want to call it that.

It's also very hard to believe some of the characters actions and lack of morals. The Mob Rule, is probably the most over-riding theme, but it probably wasn't the intention of the movie.

The movie seems to be confusing a cult / religious / dictatorship / brainwashing type scenario with Social Media and Big Data. The fundamental difference is that Social Media contains all views, both people who agree and disagree. In this film, everyone is on-board and on message. I could accept the brainwashed people, who worked on the campus, to some degree, but not the world at large.

Social Media, enables people to express themselves and connect, as per the human race, you will get some people agreeing, some not, people with different interests, agendas, criminals, bullying, etc. Social Media, doesn't dictate to people how to act.

Big Data is worrying as who in the end is able to use that data for positive or negative uses.

Mae's rise from nobody to world star, in the Circle world, for no real reason. Just because you witnessed her rather uninteresting existence (without seeing the bathroom scene's btw). I fail to see who could be bothered to view that, no one would care, would they?

The actions are too extreme for it to work as a social commentary. The inevitable death scene, was too contrived, to be taken seriously and relied on the general public to be doing nothing else, but be willing to chase after, harass and film people, not caring a jot about their safety or others. You would assume criminal charges for drone use, people harassing people, these would still be in place, regardless of Social Media.

Overall its feels like a failed Black Mirror episode and a missed opportunity.

4 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Disappointing, 28 June 2017

I was genuinely interested in seeing the scientific evidence for the Creationist theory. Not that I ever thought it could be true, but at least I had an open mind to someone else's point of view. Unfortunately the presentation is purely one sided, what would have been interesting, is both points of view on the subject.

There are so many issues here. One the Bible is not close to being a clear concise document, so even entertaining the idea that it could be an accurate historical document is, I am sorry, farcical.

Just look a Genesis, its made up of two stories that don't match and actually contradict each other, so which one is the "absolute truth" of God. The reason is that the one part of Genesis was written at a different time and by a different author than the other part. Once you realise this initial part of the Bible is being contradictory there is no need to think further that it could be some kind of accurate historical account.

If you ignore that for now, I am still interested in people challenging the normal scientific accepted accounts, but all the science was little parts and no real genuine look for the truth. I did find the statement that science wont ever admit that the "millions" of years can't be true as it destroys science, amusing. The small fact, that if its true, it destroys the creationist theory, of course, is not relevant.

Some person on this list claimed to have some kind of scientific qualification and yet said Evolution is only a theory. This statement surely means you don't have any qualifications. All science is termed a theory, it doesn't mean it should be viewed as anything other than the current truth/fact, which can be challenged.

Split (2016/IX)
97 out of 194 people found the following review useful:
No twist!, 29 March 2017

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

So M Night is back. The man who has been on a downwards spiral, well, since his first film. The 6th Sense, was excellent, in my opinion. I liked Unbreakable, but Signs was garbage and nearly everything else he has done has been rubbish (the Village has some merit).

Now this was interesting, no question. James M was stunning in his performance (similar to Filth, a brilliant film).

However, I was waiting for the pay off at the end of the movie. I assumed that the girl was either all 3 girls or the girl was just one of the personalities, that might have been a clever ending, but in the end, nothing; it just ended. Huh? What was the point of the uncle story? It added nothing. I thought it actually might have something to do with the whole story, but no, totally meaningless.

I gave it a 1, as it lead nowhere and was a waste of time. The acting of the 2 main characters was brilliant, IMO, so deserved a higher score, but the writer and director deserves a minus 10, which balances it out.

Complete crap!

Rogue One (2016)
14 out of 29 people found the following review useful:
Morrisseys version of the laughing policeman, 30 December 2016

Okay where to start.

I will confess I am not a particular fan of the Star Wars movies, I never got "into them" as many others have, but never-the-less I found them harmless entertainment. The action moved quickly and generally they were upbeat and vitriolic. Obviously, you can't take them too seriously when you have weapons which can blow up a planet, yet people still fight hand to hand or rather lightsaber to lightsaber combat.

This film tried to add a more serious side to the story. It tried by combining more slow serious scenes with the frivolity of the previous movies and unfortunately it just doesn't work. In fact, instead of giving the film depth it made it a dull, boring and miserable story. There's no fun in the movie and no interest.

The plot is painfully slow, the dialog is boring and doesn't add anything to the story or the depth of the characters. The action is dull and routine and the CGI of Peter Cushing and Carrie Fisher is terrible! In 2001, Final Fantasy looked more realistic.

The film needs some editing, a number of scene's could have been trimmed or eliminated altogether, to get this down to 100 mins and more watchable.

In the end, you have a fun action movie genre, made in a serious, uninteresting and boring style. Needless to say, it doesn't work too well.

7 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
It's a Chris Nolan film. All style, but no substance., 19 March 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

As you can probably ascertain from my title sentence, I am not a fan of Mr Nolan. However I don't have any bias prior to watching his films, in fact quite the opposite, I want to like his films, as I really like his ideas and concepts, which is why it's such a shame he never delivers.

I also seem to be in a minority with my views as his films seem to have mass appeal, certainly if you look at money they make, but so far, they have all left me cold.

Interstellar, TDK and Inception all have similar flaws: On the positive side, they are all really cinematic, stylish and well filmed. They all have really atmospheric music and nice special effects.

On the negative side, the plots are terrible and make no sense. The dialog is flat and unrealistic, there is no charisma or charm in the films, they are functional and soulless and they lack any real depth or meaning. The characters tend to be robotic and cold, not warm or humorous.

The problem is when you put these two elements together you basically get high expectations that something great is going to happen, but ultimately nothing does, so it becomes a major let down.

On to Interstellar specifically (warning spoilers a plenty): The first hour of the film, was very boring, and very silly. The Earth is running out of food, so people still plant huge fields of crops, which they destroy when driving through them for no good reason. They have completely automated the process of farming crops, yet they don't need Scientists or Engineers, they need farmers, which makes no sense.

If the Earth was starving then the crop fields would be fenced off, taken away from farmers and it would be a controlled process. Scientists and Engineers would be the most valued members of society. If the crops were so valuable they wouldn't be exposed to the elements and the dust. They would be covered and protected. Everyone is so worried about the food shortages, they don't take any notice of it. Instead they drive around in huge petrol driven SUV's from 2014 (where's the Google cars or electric cars?).

Here's an idea. You now have the ability to hibernate on spaceships, so apply that to the population of Earth and reduce the need for food. Anyway let's move on.

They go into space, arrive at some place and immediately land in some water. Do they survey the area first, check out the planet and landing area first in detail, nope they just land. Now I know there is time pressure, but why haven't NASA sent numerous robots into space to visit these planets and send back information.

Anyway this drags on a bit, they visit another place, which is another disaster and then we get to the point of the film (only after about 2 and a half hours). Cooper flies into a black hole, where he would normally be crushed and killed instantly, but survives in some kind of advanced framework, where he very predictably sends the already sent messages back to his daughter. After this there is a very silly ending. Even though he is outside of time, as it were and he can send messages to any point, he can't for some reason stay in the same time as his daughter

And how stupid was the 1970's Minecraft designed robot.

In the end the visuals and atmospheric music was great, but the plot, soul and charm of the film was completely missing, unfortunately like all Nolan movies.

John Wick (2014)
10 out of 21 people found the following review useful:
Best action movie since Raid 2 and about 10 years before that., 16 January 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Of course the plot is nothing new, it's your usual revenge story. However the delivery of this well-trodden path is told in such a quirky, interesting and stylish manner, it makes all the difference.

First off, the camera work and fights scene are superb. Please any director making Bourne, James Bond or the awful Inception, keep the bloody camera on and at a distance. This stupid jumping, cutting every 2 nanoseconds with a camera 5 centimeters from the nose of the actor, is awful. It ruins any action movie.

We know the story is cliché, so the director presents the story in a very chic and interesting way, which doesn't leave you bored. There is also this tongue-in-cheek criminal world with its own rules and quirks, which adds to the interest.

I notice from other reviews there is a lot of focus on the revenue story, being boring and routine. There are almost no original plots these days, most stories are based around a simple plot of love or revenge. This is no different, but what elevates it above so many other actions films is the style, pacing and brilliant fighting scenes. It doesn't dwell on the obvious, it treats the viewer with some intelligence.

There is very little unnecessary obvious join-the-dots dialog. Everything is keep lean, fast and minimal. It doesn't hide the inevitable story, it embraces and celebrates it.

Before someone accuses me of being someone with no film experience, I am in my 40's and have seen way too many movies, I find nearly everything predictable and dull. This one was a very pleasant surprise in a sea of mediocrity.

Shell (2012/I)
5 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
Slow but well made, 3 September 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Obviously its very hard to give this massively high marks, as the subject matter is not the most interesting. However I did enjoy it, it is slow paced, but has that knack of using silences to convey much more than dialog can.

One thing however is that I didn't see any review getting what I got from the story. I will come straight out with it, for me this was her being rejected by a father who had been molesting her since a young age. It was clear to me that now she was older, she was being rejected by her father. Her mother had perhaps left because of the situation or her leaving caused it.

There is a clear scene where a young girl wanders into the place and the mother is worried, as is the daughter, thinking he would go after a young girl again.

She has mixed emotions of loving her father as a father, but feeling rejected by father sexual love, so she goes of with some local boy briefly. In the end she is released and can move on.

52 out of 78 people found the following review useful:
Unrealistic immoral claptrap., 4 December 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Wow, how bad was this. How did this nonsense ever get funding.

You have a policeman that actually acts more like a criminal than anyone else, he is cruel, nasty, a bully and a murderer yet is somehow portrayed as the hero of the piece.

He wouldn't have lasted a minute and would have been arrested, shamed and put in prison. You cannot just drive a car into a crime scene, without identifying yourself clearly or actually reading people their rights. Anyone arrested by this ragtag bunch of thugs would have got off in 10 second and sued the police station for brutality.

The arrest of the chap at his farmhouse, for doing nothing wrong, was ridiculous, wrongful arrest, police harassment and brutality, totally unbelievable.

At the end I was so appalled by the actions of Regan/Carter I wanted them and his whole crew to be killed. I was routing for the criminals, which were more victims than any of the police were.

Oh and apparently if you don't like a colleague in the police, you just verbally abuse him and then try to strangle him, which is acceptable behaviour.

On top of this claptrap, you then have gun fights where no one hits anyone and apparently wood has the same strength as steel.


Page 1 of 13:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]