Reviews written by registered user
dug278

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

9 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Chrysalis (2007/I)
20 out of 29 people found the following review useful:
Stylish action sci-fi, 26 January 2009
6/10

This is a cross between sci-fi,Philip K. Dick style,hard edged cop thriller,and some jiu jitsu martial arts thrown in as well.It is really brutal at times,but not gratuitous.The lighting is cold throughout,but it's never really dark.The colour seems washed out,and added to the lighting it's almost black and white at times.But I really liked the style.Despite being set in Paris,almost every scene is somewhat claustrophobic.There is rarely a view of the Eiffel Tower,and very few,if any,crowd scenes.Most scenes are in the police staion,underground,science lab,or apartment blocks.

This is an intense psychological film that demands your attention,and you will be rewarded if you stick with it.

4 Minutes (2006)
7 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Beautiful and emotional,a must see movie, 4 January 2009
8/10

An elderly spinster piano teacher in a womens prison,Mrs.Kruger, takes one of the inmates,Jenny,under her wing.The teacher loves music but can't connect with people.Jenny is young and absolutely gifted,but hates playing because it brings back a personal trauma from her past.The teacher tries to teach the student about respect,whilst the student reminds the teacher what it's like to be young and emotional.

There are sub plots concerning both of their respective past personal lives but basically,it is just about two characters from vastly different generations and backgrounds who form an uneasy alliance in a harsh environment,and both of them benefit from the experience.

Keep a box of tissues handy because the film is an emotional roller-coaster.I have no doubt that if they remade this in Hollywood with A-list stars, (which they probably eventually will),that it would clean up at the Oscars.But I guarantee that it would not be as good as this movie.

Four Minutes (Vier Minuten) is actually about 110 minutes,and pretty much every one of them is worthy.A must see movie.

16 out of 22 people found the following review useful:
Embarrassingly bad, 22 December 2008
1/10

I had pretty low expectations of this film just because of the ridiculous title,but this was even worse than expected.It was one of the the worst films I've seen all year,or any year.Quite frankly,it is **** of the highest order.I was hoping for enjoyable,tongue in cheek nonsense like Snakes On A Plane,but this was outrageously bad.I don't know which was the more embarrassing,the rubber looking shark or Stephen Baldwin's man boobs.

Seriously,there is nothing whatsoever to recommend this film apart from the fairly catchy title.I just dread the day when we see films like The Great Thames Piranha Invasion, or Silverback Gorillas Take Manhattan....

It may be called Shark In Venice,but it was actually made in Bulgaria.Judging this film,I will be careful to avoid any 'Bullywood' films in the future.

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Stunning,amazing,incredible,wow.....!!!, 25 November 2008
9/10

I could not praise this film enough.It is quite frankly stunning! I had never read any reviews of the film and quite honestly,after the first ten minutes or so,where the characters just seemed to be milling around doing random things,I wondered what the point was.But when the storyteller asked the first apparently hypothetical question,I sat up and took notice.As the conversation grew more intense and the story grew more outlandish,I was totally immersed.And when he dropped the bombshell of atomic proportions,I was quite literally blown away!! This is not a film you watch with a group of friends and a six pack.It demands your complete attention,it pulls you into the room with the assembled cast so you are sitting there with them,open mouthed at this most incredible story.I have seen at least ten multi million dollar blockbuster movies this year that have left me literally angry with disappointment.Yet here is a low budget,practically no budget film, with only eight people in it, set almost entirely in one small room,and it was one of the most satisfying and gripping films I have seen for several years.

A picture is worth a thousand words,but several hundred words strung together in an intelligent and articulate way are worth a million CGI effects.

Pour yourself a glass of your favourite drink,open your mind,and be taken on a mind trip of epic proportions.I really can not get this film out of my head at the moment.Just amazing.

King Kong (2005)
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Peter Jackson has lost the plot, 8 January 2007
4/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It seems that the success of the LOTR series has gone to Peter Jackson's head,and he believes that he can make any old nonsense and the public will buy it.Well not this member.This film was downright embarrassingly bad at times.Like what are the chances of ANYONE surviving after running a mile underneath a rampaging herd of Brontosaurus.Like Naomi Watts doing a song and dance act in front of a 25 foot gorilla in the middle of the jungle......like a guy shooting giant insects off another guy from about ten feet away,with an antique machine gun (without hitting the other guy)......Like Kong sliding across the ice in a totally deserted Central Park five minutes after he turned the city to hell (there are not even any sirens in the background).....like why did we not see Kong fall at the end of the movie....like etc,etc.I could go on all night quite frankly.Also,the Skull Island set was just leftovers from the LOTR films.Jackson put no imagination into this film whatsoever,yet it was still at least half an hour too long.Good special effects are important,but if the story is so lame,who is going to care? 8th wonder of the world my ass.

Me and Naomi Watts,a cheap hotel,and a bottle of chloroform.I could wonder about that all night........

23 out of 25 people found the following review useful:
enjoyable caper, 30 August 2004
8/10

These guys are anything but the Usual Suspects! They are a total bunch of likeable oddballs who you want to see get away with it,but they are so hapless that there is very little chance of that.No one is better than William H Macy at portraying the man with a big heart but down on his luck.This is probably his best performance since Fargo.Sam Rockwell played the meathead boxer to perfection,and the rest of the gang were uniformly good also.Luis Guzman brought some great comic relief as Cosimo,and George Clooney stole every scene in his cameo role.The heist scene at the end was absolutely hilarious.

The direction was also spot on by the Russo brothers.There was certainly a Coen brothers feel to the film throughout and it will be interesting to see how they will develop their careers.They have a long way to go to match the Coen's but this is an excellent start and I look forward to their next celluloid outing. ......."Yo mutha's a whore"!

28 better things to do than watch this movie...., 30 June 2003
4/10

1.Read a book 2.Write a Haiku 3.Watch the Cleveland Indians (CC,Omar,Milton-you guys rock!) 4.....Drink a pint of beer-(25 times)

Frankly,I cannot recommend this movie on any level.The pace is tedious,special effects are less than ordinary,and the whole film is grainy throughout,particularly in the dark scenes.Apparently,the film was shot using digital cameras,to give the film a "really real look".It looks horrendous,particularly on DVD.And the worst thing about this film is that it is not the least bit scary,which is sadly true of the large majority of horror films made these days (in mainstream Hollywood at least).The actual premise is indeed scary,but it does not translate to the screen.Zombie movies have been done to death,quite literally.George A.Romero owns this genre and everyone else should stop even trying to come up with anything new.Even he resorted to rehashing his own material in the end.

Dead movie,dead genre.Give it a miss.

--Now is the time to get drunk! To stop being the martyred slaves of time, to get absolutely drunk - on wine, poetry, or on virtue, as you please!--

0 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
A slow start to the trilogy,but has potential, 26 August 2002
6/10

I have never personally read the books or anything else by Tolkien,and as such I didn't have any expectations of the film one way or the other.But I could hardly avoid all the general hype that preceded it.Unfortunately in my opinion,it did not live up to it,not even close.The pace of the film was laboured throughout.Just when things looked like they were really going to get going,it just went off on another tangent.I think Elijah Wood is a decent enough young actor,but he did seem out of his depth in this role. And I'm glad that Liv Tyler only had a cameo role,because I really don't rate her too highly as an actress at all. Otherwise,I found the acting to be pretty competent.The British trio of Ian Mc Kellen,Ian Holm,and Christopher Lee were all excellent.Sean Bean too made the most of his part.My favourite performance though was from Viggo Mortensen.A really heroic part,well performed.He was no Han Solo,but for me his character was the highlight of the film.

It may be unfair to compare this film in any way to the Star Wars saga,but one of the things I remember about all the pre opening hype was that it was compared to it,and very favourably.But Star Wars was a phenomenon,the first true blockbuster.It has since become the yardstick to which every new potential blockbuster is compared to and not many,if any,have lived up to that.Even though Star Wars-Episode One had some major flaws,I still found it a much more exhilarating viewing experience than this movie.

But this is the first of a trilogy and the series should really be judged after every film has been released.It does look to have potential and hopefully this is the director staying as true as he can to the novels.It is an epic and you cannot cram everything into one movie.I'm looking tentatively forward to the next part of the series,hoping for a bit more pace to the film. 6 out of 10 from me for this one.

Hannibal (2001)
Don't bother, 18 March 2001
3/10

Why oh why did they bother making this movie? The first one was a horror suspense classic,but this is a total non event.There is nothing right about this movie at all.It is a total bunch of nonsense from the sleep inducing start through to the downright risible ending.Nothing against the lead actors,they were watchable enough.Hopkins was his usual reliable self,but the whole premise of the movie made his performance almost a parody of the first one,and Julianne Moore was very good as well.She didn't have the vulnerability of Jodie Foster's portrayal of the character in the first movie which gave that film the extra depth,but since this film takes place ten years after,that is perfectly understandable.The character would no doubt have changed alot in that amount of time,especially being in such a high profile and male dominated profession such as the FBI. The rest of the cast though were just there to make up the numbers or to be fodder for Hopkins.Gary Oldman was more over the top even than usual,and Ray Liotta seemed lobotomised long before the ending.How can David Mamet,the same man who wrote the sublime Glengarry Glenross be involved in a movie with such poor characterisation as was on show here? And as for Ridley Scott,perhaps he should go back to making TV ads and pop promos,which is what most of his films resemble nowadays. The first film left enough scope for a sequel but this has come far too late and at the expense of some great talent.What a waste.