Reviews written by registered user
xorys

Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]
50 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

0 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
When the best imitate the worst..., 19 December 2013
1/10

This has to be the worst episode of the entire 50 year run of Dr. Who. Why on earth (and yes, we are still stuck on earth) would one of the best scripted shows to emerge in a century of television feel that it had something to gain by drawing inspiration from the worst dregs of the death of all that is any good in television? When the best start to deliberately imitate the worst, you have to start fearing that the human race is really going to hell under its own power, without needing Daleks to help it. This was a bad mistake, and a sad day for Dr. Who. But keep the faith... forget this rubbish and soldier on - better things do await.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Sadly, a truly stupid, annoying movie, 12 March 2013
2/10

I really wanted to like this movie. I'm a keen golfer. More than that, a keen student of the history of golf. And I actually believe many of the things that are said about golf in this film. Unfortunately they are drowned in endless sickening violins, and Will Smith's awful, permanently smirking character. If I had to play a round of golf with a pontificating smirker like that, it would be really all I could do to get round the course without making a serious attempt to do him an injury. There are certainly other nits that could be picked - the rules of golf are not well respected in the presentation, and the movie is rather unfair to Robert Jones and Walter Hagen, who were, after all, real people. But the massively annoying Bagger Vance character and the dreadful syrupy music drowning all significant moments are what really sink the movie. The style of the cinematography somewhat matches the music, but I could have lived with that, if it were not for the other problems. Given the paucity of decent golf movies, I suppose this is worth checking out for those interested in golf and its history, but it really is a bit much to take - muting the sound, especially when Bagger is speaking, might improve it quite a bit (although you'd still have to endure the best part of an hour of that annoying smirk).

Stay Cool (2009)
12 out of 20 people found the following review useful:
Badly written pointless obsession with high school, 6 June 2012
2/10

I rented this movie with on the expectation that it might be an intelligent comedy with some good actors. Unfortunately it turned out to be badly written garbage. And what is it with this North American obsessions with high school?! If you're 15 and you're obsessed with high school that's... I guess kind of normal, especially if you're of limited mental capacity and rather self-obsessed. But if you're 40 and you're still obsessed with high school, then I'm sorry, but there's something seriously wrong with you! The point of high school is to help young people connect with their own abilities, and to help make them aware of aspects of the world beyond their immediate existence. The point of high school is NOT to serve as a paradigm for the rest of the students' lives. And, as I say, if you're well into the middle years of your life, and you still are mainly focused on self-image and relationship issues left over from high school, then you seriously need to do something about your problems. And DON'T watch this stupid movie.

6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
A ludicrous farrago, 5 January 2012
2/10

Exactly who is this movie supposed to appeal to? The principal character (taking up something like 70% of the screen time) is a singularly unprepossessing, permanently sulky infant. The human cast is essentially rounded out by her preoccupied parents, who are pretty much ciphers as characters. The 'threat' is a bunch of the most ridiculous monsters ever dreamed up - sort of a cross between Dobby the house-elf and a mangy rat. I was rather inclined to sympathize with the monsters - after all they're small and they're there first, so they are pretty much the underdogs in this story. But they're not really very appealing, tending to scurry around and gesticulate a lot. Basically the only people I can imagine finding this movie satisfying would be those looking for Gothic design and moody lighting, and not at all concerned about plot or character. If that's your thing, then there's a certain amount to enjoy here. Kids who can identify with the sulky protagonist might be another possible audience - but the film is R rated, and so hardly targeted at the under 10 market. I've given is two out of ten purely for visual elements - it clearly deserves zero for plot and character.

Bunraku (2010)
5 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Truly awful, 29 December 2011
1/10

I was tricked into watching this movie by the cover copy on the DVD, plus the fact that it had several excellent performers in it. Well... so far as the cover copy goes ("By far the best film I have seen this year") - either the guy saw it immediately after midnight on January 1st, or... I don't want to know what he was smoking. And yeah, I know I shouldn't be so dumb as to believe DVD cover copy. So, what about the movie. It's sort of like a cross between a high school production of Our Town (complete with UNBELIEVABLY annoying voice over) and a really, really, really bad comic, all visualized by a berserk designer whose main concern seems to be how many extreme color filters he can use. What else can I say. If this description seems appealing to you, by all means go ahead... but be prepared to be endlessly yammered at and patronized, and bored senseless by ham-fisted theatrics, and don't expect anything in the way of realism or sense. Approach this one the way you would a night at a bad amateur dramatic society, with a particularly 'artsy' director... then you won't be disappointed.

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Massively better than the critics said, 28 December 2009
9/10

This is a movie I really felt I had to write about, as it got so universally panned, and it's really pretty good. It would be such a great shame if they stopped making movies like this, because of all the yapping nay-sayers. I'm not saying that it's the best movie of the year... but I am saying that the gap between how good it is and the reviews it got is the greatest I've seen for... well, a very long while - many years. OK, so maybe I'm a bit biased, given that I'm something like the main character in some ways - I'm not cute, and certainly no one has ever called me 'kooky', but I do tend to ramble on about many subjects rather incessantly, just because.. well a lot of things interest me. And honestly, it's kind of refreshing to see a character like that treated in a movie positively, rather than as some sort of buffoon. I enjoyed this movie way more than Sandra Bullock's other recent comic vehicle 'The Proposal' - I found that rather mean spirited and cringe-making. On the other hand, this movie is, yes, perhaps a bit corny and old-fashioned in some ways. But myself I'd much rather have this 'old fashion' than the new trend to build comedy on meanness, gross-out, annoyance and others' misfortune. So, do yourself a favour - ignore the critics and the naysayers, and give this movie a chance... especially if you enjoy old-fashioned romance and comedy based on human character. And I really hope the movie makers know that some people at least really enjoyed this movie.

Star Trek (2009)
5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Very Disappointing, 21 November 2009
2/10

I must say I was very, very disappointed by this movie. I had read a lot of critical praise for it, and not seen much in the way of negative comment, so I expected it to be a least fairly good. Unfortunately this was not so. Frankly it seemed to me mostly a load of distasteful sensationalism, that did nothing but harm to the Star Trek vision. Of course it has plenty of fancy special effects - although they do seem to lean heavily towards a lot of flashing coloured swirls. And the acting is thoroughly professional - given the script, I don't think the actors can be faulted at all. They do excellent work with what's available to them. But the whole direction seems a complete disaster to me. Really I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised or disappointed. This is entirely consistent with Abrams' previous performance. I have to admit I've found all his previous output pretty much intolerable, with the possible exception of parts of Felicity. But I don't really have any emotional investment in, for example, Mission Impossible, so I didn't much care if he made a mess of that - other than the fact that film was just extremely unpleasant, and generally a negative contribution to the human race. I care more about this, because I really do think that Star Trek was worth saving from being reduced to this kind of nasty trash. Ah well, nothing is safe in this universe. As Spock might say, we must try to avoid emotional involvement, and rationally all we can do is try our best to encourage positive alternatives. As a final note, though, I truly am shocked that this movie didn't get much more negative response, especially from fans of the real Star Trek (fairly multifarious though that may be... but I certainly wouldn't include this unpleasant misbirth).

Yes Man (2008)
5 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
No, no, no, no, 17 May 2009
1/10

Let's not mince words - this movie is completely worthless, worse than awful, appalling. Every minute that anyone, anywhere spends watching this utter rubbish diminishes the human race. Try as I might, I cannot see anything positive likely to arise for anyone from watching this. Why was it made? Presumably to raise money, to attempt to revive Jim Carrey's career... surely not out of anything resembling artistic vision, let alone inspiration. It's not offensive or anything... just desperate, dismal, and dispiritingly rancid. You could, I'm pretty sure, find more enjoyment and enlightenment by going out onto a busy street and inviting strangers to insult you - at least you wouldn't have to pay them, and you might possibly hear something useful or amusing, which is more than you will get by paying to see this movie.

13 out of 27 people found the following review useful:
What a stupid, annoying load of rubbish, 23 November 2008
1/10

How could this movie possibly have received so much acclaim? OK, it's competently executed, both in terms of acting and production values - but then with the money spent on it, hopefully that should be taken for granted. And certainly it has some fine actors in it, and they give every impression of fully believing in their work. But what the heck is the point of it supposed to be? I'm sorry, but I just absolutely hated it. It reminds me of a local case in the press here in Toronto a while ago where some 'art student' made a movie of a cat being tortured to death. Since he actually tortured a cat to death to make it, he was charged and prosecuted, and his defence was that it was 'art'. Well... at least all the people tortured and killed in this movie presumably were only faking it and weren't actually hurt. But I still don't think it has any more claim to be worthwhile or to be art. It's obnoxious rubbish... and I strongly suggest that if you haven't seen it and are considering doing so, you think of some better use for your time (which would be pretty much anything not actually harmful to your health or anybody else's).

25 out of 28 people found the following review useful:
Better than expected, 15 July 2003

Given the very negative comments by others on IMDB about this film, I wasn't really expecting much, especially given that it was directed by Roger Corman, who, whilst he certainly has his talents, would not really be expected to helm a period piece with high production values. Actually I found this film not at all bad. Certainly its narrative plays fast and loose with historical details. But it is quite authentic in many respects - the planes themselves, and the nature of air combat depicted, are reasonably accurate (better, for example, than the planes in The Blue Max, which often look like very thinly disguised Tiger Moths). And fair chunks of the dialogue seem to be taken almost directly from the writings of actual WW1 flyers. Even the rather melodramatic plot does have roots in historical truths, and functions well enough to engage the viewer's attention throughout. I'd say it's definitely worth a look, and compares surprisingly well with the generally much better regarded The Blue Max.


Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]