Reviews written by registered user
MouthyMatthew

Send an IMDb private message to this author or view their message board profile.

9 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

It Follows (2014)
55 out of 109 people found the following review useful:
It Follows? It Blows, More Like..., 13 March 2015
1/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

How in God's name has this film received so many positive reviews? Did I even endure the same painful mess as everyone else or has there been more than one release of this absolute turd of a film?

It begins with the camera following a girl who can't quite make up her mind where in her street she'd like to run to in her eight-inch heels and skimpy nightwear. In the end she can't decide, so feels the need to drive to a beach so that she can have a heartfelt conversation with her father about how deeply sorry she is for her atrocious acting, and she acknowledges that she deserves never to work in acting again before meeting a gruesome demise.

I deeply cared about this character at this point, and the death had a huge impact on me, which will doubtlessly haunt me to my own dying day.

We're then introduced to the main character, whose name utterly escapes me, and shall be remembered as Little Miss Insipid. After a few minutes of similarly in-depth character development whereby we learn she like squirrels, wonders whether ants can swim (they can't), and enjoys swimming in grubby outdoor pools, she's quickly given the Ghostbusters equivalent of a nasty case of crabs and is sent on her merry way to either infect someone else or die a gruesome death of her own.

And that, dear reader, is about as much as you need to know, because that, dear reader, is where your brain will turn to sludge and start to drip out of your ears whilst you try to watch the rest of the movie.

Don't get me wrong, though. Perhaps watching a very slow, usually half- naked, tit-hanging-out, pissing-herself ghost slowly wander up to someone with as much menace of a fluffy duckling and at the speed of an arthritic tortoise is your idea of the perfect film.

It isn't mine.

Call me crazy but I like a scary film to be, well, let's push the boat out and say scary. I know, I know, it's a lot to ask.

This film is boring, pointless, poorly-acted, veers from unnecessarily loud to unnecessarily quiet (and no, not for effect, it's just irritating) and is genuinely without doubt one of the worst films I've ever seen.

And if you do go to see it, and halfway through you resist the urge to get up and leave because you think it'll get better: get up and leave. Because it just goes off at the end, without any explanation or reasoning, and leaves you desperately wishing you'd gone with your gut instinct and left at least an hour beforehand.

Avoid like the clap. Pun intended.

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
The Mortal Instruments: City of Loose Ends, 27 August 2013
4/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

LOTS OF SPOILERS

I've seen many a movie that's chock full of plot holes, but I've seen few that have as many loose ends and stupid decisions as this one.

Off the top of my head and without having to really rack my brains very much, these are those which immediately spring to mind:

* Near the beginning, why did Clary's mother lock herself into the only room of the house without an exit? Every other Shadowhunter can level up against armies of creatures seemingly single-handedly, yet this one seems only able to cower in a bathroom with a mobile phone in one hand and a frying pan in the other.

* Why make an obvious scene out of Simon having a vampire bite if they weren't going to take it anywhere? Wouldn't Clary have asked someone if there was something that could be done? No, she just shrugs it off, thankful that her only lifelong friend no longer needs to waste money on glasses or contact lenses.

* Why make a point of getting Clary to check Simon's mobile, so she can get all annoyed about him not taking her mother's call for help - and then not take it anywhere?

* There you are, trapped, with dozens of demons beating down the door - the end is nigh! But wait! You use your Magic Marker to draw a 'Freeze, Demons, Freeze!' rune, saving the day. Well, you would have saved the day if you'd killed them whilst frozen. Instead, you just tip-toe past them all so that it can wear off and then all your saviours get butchered.

* When Clary realised where the Cup was hidden and returned to the witch, why did half of them go upstairs and tip iron filings all over the floor? It was never explained and never developed. Just another needless and pointless scene.

* Why did Alec react so badly to Clary's accusation regarding Jase? Again, it went absolutely nowhere.

* Speaking of Alec, how did Bane know to turn up at the institute and why did no-one so much as ask him how he knew to turn up, and what he was going to be able to do to help?

* Jase warns Clary that it takes years and years to properly attune your mind to use the portal. Yet she can seemingly dive head first into the magic puddle and end up just around the corner, within walking distance. Who knew that 'limbo' would be in the same zip code? Well I never...

* Apparently, if you wish to summon an unholy army of demons - make sure you leave the skylight open. You know how fussy those demon sorts are about getting some fresh air upon arrival.

I could go on but it's suffice to say that I wasn't impressed and thought the film was just plain bad. And it didn't help that there seemed to be no clear antagonist. If Valentine was meant to play that role, then why make the demons the things that everyone is fighting. Who are the 'good guys' meant to be fighting against? Who's working against them? The vampires? The demons? Valentine?

The film held my attention for around 30 minutes but after that it was all downhill, and from the vampire nest onwards it had lost me entirely. The rest was just a painfully long bore-fest that just wouldn't stop.

If they're stupid enough to make a sequel to this twaddle, I won't be stupid enough to go to watch it.

4/10

415 out of 702 people found the following review useful:
Les Pàinful, 12 January 2013
1/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I went to see this film as a complete Les Mis virgin, having no idea as to the storyline, and having never seen any previous production nor having read the novel.

But I enjoy musicals (both in the theatre and film versions) and I went with an open mind, and looking forward to seeing something a little different from the norm. Sadly, within the first few minutes, I knew I'd made a mistake, and this has become one of my most hated films of all time.

Indeed, I always rate films but rarely review them, but I just had to get this off my chest. Particularly because so many reviews seem to be gushing about its brilliance, and although I'm fully prepared to admit that my views are in the minority, I think it's important to air them if only in the interest of balance and representation.

It didn't take long to realise that every single word of the dialogue was to be 'sung'. I say 'sung' rather than sung, because it wasn't what I could really refer to as singing. Just because one woooooord of any given liiiiiine is extended like thiiiiiis, does not, in my mind, make it 'singing'. In fact, if it weren't for the extended words in nearly every sentence, the film would likely have been at least thirty minutes shorter.

The lack of spoken dialogue really detracted from many of the scenes. When even the most mundane of sentences has to be delivered in such a way, it becomes grating. I wouldn't have been at all surprised for someone to bellow out "pass the saaaaaalt". It was just awful.

And the repetition! I understand that chords and themes repeat throughout musicals, often linking similarities between scenes and concepts and characters. It isn't that I don't understand that. But this was too much. It was as though the same tones and flow were repeated every four lines. Every. Four. Lines. With the third or fourth wooooooords extended. Every. Single Time.

I'm getting wound up reliving the moment and I've waited till the following morning before doing this review in case my opinion mellowed.

It hasn't.

And the duration of the film only served to make it worse. Occasionally the film would announce via on-screen text that it was now "8 years later", or whatever. And I felt as though I'd been there for that entire time. In fact, it felt like longer.

It became one of those films which leaves you feeling physically drained from the effort of battling through it. It was that bad. It felt like I've undergone a test of endurance and although I got through it, it wasn't without mental scarring!

Beyond the monotony, repetition and delivery, there was the story, which (perhaps as I had no prior knowledge of the source) was nonsensical. People falling in love within a single glance, which then goes on to motivate someone else to endure warfare to carry the person, half-dead? Chasing someone for what, 17 years, because of breaking parole for a loaf of bread, which itself warranted a previous 19 years of suffering? Only to then throw yourself to your death?

Am I meant to believe these characters? Am I meant to care about them?

Anne Hathaway's deterioration from factory worker to cropped and toothless prostitute was compacted into all of 42 seconds, so when it came to her performance of I Dreamed A Dream (which was a rare highlight in the film) its impact was stunted because why should we care about this woman? She's only just been introduced to us and we know nothing about her (presumably because everyoooooone is too busy singing like thiiiiiiiis instead of actually making us caaaaaaare).

Yet apparently Hugh Jackman cares so much about her that he then devotes his entire life to her child? It was mentioned at the very beginning that he has a sister and a nephew of his own, why not take care of them? Or were they dead (as he went to a cross in the ground after being paroled) but if that's the case it wasn't explained well.

A film should be able to stand on its own two feet and not require its audience to have read the book or seen the musical. The Harry Potter books far exceed the movies, yet people can enjoy the movies on their own merit. Not so with Les Mis.

And the casting was bizarre as well. I don't understand why the casting was given to Hollywood actors instead of singers. Borat? Really?? And accents were flying all over the place. Early in the film, when Hugh Jackman is in the church, he suddenly sounds as though he's stepped off the first boat from Ireland, and half of the cast of jumped straight out of a Mary Poppins chalk drawing!

I can't find a single redeeming feature to mention about this film. Miscast. Rubbish sets (most of it looking like obvious CGI). Repetitive 'singing'. No spoken dialogue. Nonsensical plot. Ridiculous pacing. No character development or involvement.

Beyond doubt one of the worst films I have ever watched, and I would sooner have my teeth extracted by a French street urchin than ever have to endure this horror again.

7 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Heard It All Before, 30 August 2012
2/10

The funniest thing about this movie has to be its trailer, which took all the best lines and scenes from the film, changed their order and context, and portrayed a very different movie to the one you end up watching.

The two main problems that I found with this movie is that for one thing, Leigh Francis's character of Keith Lemon is fundamentally unlikeable, and secondly, the entire cornerstone for any humour in it is based on catchphrases and jokes that any fan will already have heard a hundred times before.

During one of the many times that my mind wandered away, I wondered what the point of the film was. Was it meant to springboard the character to an international audience (hence the need to shoehorn in every catchphrase and joke ever uttered on Celebrity Juice to regions that might not have seen or heard them before), or was it a nod to existing fans (seeing as the whole film seemed to be done on a shoestring budget and couldn't possibly be considered a serious international contender).

And I still have no idea what the answer is, and therefore have no idea why this film exists at all.

The Keith Lemon character has been over-exposed on UK television for some time now, and I'm of the opinion that Leigh Francis is well aware of this fact himself, and decided to wring every last penny out of it rather than to come up with a new character or new material.

Seeing this film has only served to put me off Keith Lemon, to the point where the new series of Celebrity Juice (due to begin today) has gone from being a viewing highlight that I was looking forward to, to a case of "I'll give it one chance and if it gets on my nerves like the film did I'll stop watching entirely".

There's no need for a spoiler warning in this review because there's no film to spoil. There's very little in the way of acting, plot, script, pacing or storyline. It's just Keith Lemon rehashing everything you've heard before, except you're stuck in the cinema watching it and wishing you were somewhere else.

If you're a Keith Lemon fan - avoid. And if you're not - avoid it twice as hard.

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Unnecessarily Spoiled, 10 August 2012
6/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Firstly I should say that I'm a big fan of the Harry Potter books, but that's not to say that I'm not able to enjoy the films in their own right - and I do enjoy all of the Harry Potter films, to differing extents.

The thing I find about The Goblet of Fire is that it could so easily have been better. There are just so many scenes that are spoiled by senseless additions, extreme over-acting, poor character decisions, or a combination of all three.

The over-acting is perhaps the worst thing about the film, and in particular by Emma Watson. She was excusably young in the first two films and did sufficiently well enough for an actress of her years. But the third film marked quite a dramatic change (for me, at least) and her acting significantly improved.

So it was something of a surprise that it should so suddenly revert to once again being a series of exasperated gasps, irritated sighs, eyebrows with a life of their own, and lots of anger. This is when she isn't speaking like she'd been raised as royalty rather than the daughter of two dentists, or as though she's going on 40 years old.

And speaking of anger, one very jarring annoyance about this movie is Dumbledore's character. I appreciate that this might not be such an issue for viewers who are unfamiliar with the books but it's even a stark contrast to how he is portrayed in all of the other films. And when he isn't shouting at everyone, he's always looking in the wrong direction towards whichever digitally-added effect he's meant to be interacting with. It's just dreadful, really.

Beyond the over-acting there are many other scenes where things simply don't make sense. Krum is the world's best Seeker and in the books he is (as would be logical) slim and gangly. Yet in the film he's some kind of beefcake. Or in the first challenge, the dragon breaks free, and not a single teacher or official acts to control the situation.

There are many examples like the dragon one, whereby scenes were added, but added carelessly and which made no sense. To my mind it would have made sense to either keep more of the original book in the film, or to take extra care when adding new scenes so that the story or characters aren't compromised. But instead of this approach they just butchered the book to its bare minimum and added many "just because" scenes instead.

In fact, they took a book with a great deal of sub-plots and interesting characters, and turned it into nothing more than a showcase for the three main Triwizard Challenges.

All in all the film is disappointing. Later films (particularly the final two) were to show that all of the actors and actresses were capable of so much more, and indeed even the previous film to this one showed this, too.

So, to my mind, this film's lacklustre entry into the series isn't really forgivable, and I'm glad that the director didn't return to ruin any more of the series.

It may lack depth, but it's still charming., 9 May 2002
8/10

Looking through many movie reviews on IMDB it occurred to me how often a film can be marked down if a reviewer feels it didn't portray the novel as well as they feel it should have. For me though, I think that reading a book and watching a film will always be two very different medias. When you read, you are lost in the world your mind creates. When you view, it is a much more linear affair with much less room for self interpretation.

So... having come to this film having never read the book I fail to see the holes that others may think it has. To me, the film is simply a good film and one that I have returned to more than once.

You all know the ones, we all have them in our collections. There are certain films that you always associate with a certain feeling. Then you'll be sat at home and something will trigger a memory and you'll think "I know, I'll watch (insert film here)".

Well, Practical Magic is one of those films. It doesn't take itself too seriously, but as a result you never feel you have to question it's motives. It doesn't try to be something it's not. It's more a film about the relationship of two sisters than a tale of two witches. The magic aspect is secondary which helps to tie in with the whole point of the movie, that magic can be practical and doesn't necessarily have to be fantastic.

I think the movie does a good job of conveying this and shouldn't be knocked too badly just because it doesn't create the same images as the book may have done for you. Every person who reads a book will have a different idea of how the characters look and the world they inhabit. It's impossible for a film to match everyones ideals.

Just watch the film for what it is and you wont be disappointed.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
How does she manage to keep getting better and better?, 7 April 2001
9/10

Ok, I admit, I'm a life long fan of all things Victoria Wood. She captured my imagination through my school years and has just stuck with me ever since. As one of Britains best loved female comediennes though at least I'm not alone.

This show aired over Xmas 2000 and really took me by surprise. Usually only the Simpsons manages to deliver a continual stream of laugh after laugh but Victoria Wood manages to pull it off fantastically and I thoroughly enjoyed watching it.

Naturally the addition of the wonderful Julie Walters assists no ends, with the best clip having to be their mutual portrayal of two war time women. Julie Walters line regarding the death of her husband has to be the funniest thing I've heard in years ;)

Highly recommended.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Fantastic, funny, feel good film., 11 October 1999
7/10

When I first watched this movie, I loved it...

Having watched it countless times since, that hasn't changed. The heartwarming story of this modern day 'Ugly Ducking' tale has yet to lose its charm with me.

My only complaint or gripe? That after all the c**p that Muriel (that's MARIEL!!) takes, you wish she would give back as good as she gets come the end. She doesn't quite kick a** like you may like, but then, I guess that would be out of character for her.

Eitherway, if you like movies that can make you laugh, make you cry, and make you think, before making you laugh all over again, this is the one for you.

Fantastic.

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
You've just got to love it, 11 October 1999

When I first watched this series I thought it was funny, but crude. Then I got hooked on it and religiously watched every episode. It's just so fresh and so funny. Kathy Burke has always been wonderful but this just shows off her many talents :)Excellent.