Reviews written by registered user
pastanley

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

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

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Hard to like, 20 May 2014
3/10

The style is something you either like or hate. I belong to the latter category.

The camera flits about, hand held for much of the film; scenes are short and sometimes mere single shots. Ben Afflect says little and what he does say is generally a mumble or something insignificant.

There is no narrative, as such. It is a jumble of images. Whoever thought the director is some master film-maker must have rocks in their head. It is a movie which I equate to incomprehensible rubbish, trying hard to be an art piece.

Most annoying are the French sub-titles, made by the female lead. Gibberish would be too kind to describe the outpourings.

I was attracted to the movie because of the actors but they are all disappointing. Film students would make a better film with amateur actors. I had to fast forward to avoid falling asleep.

I will no longer complain about mindless violence in blockbusters.

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Can it be any more boring?, 12 August 2012
5/10

Unlike other reviewers who raved about the movie and the performances, I can't do the same.

Although the actors played their roles realistically, they were in a film which I found to be slow and utterly boring. I didn't think, after seeing Michelle Williams in "A Week with Marilyn" that she could appear so ordinary and unattractive, both physically and emotionally.

Did I want to see marriage the way it is for real? I could have stayed home for that. Nothing was new in this. Just do a reality spot on numerous marriages and you'd come away with the same depressing sentiment.

Flashing back and forth works at times but here it all blended in to produce a mish-mash of scenes, some of which were incomprehensible.

A very forgettable movie and certainly not one to be revisited.

10 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
Mockumovie, 14 October 2011
1/10

This film is an insult to movie making. Reality TV no, pretend reality TV, it tries to be. Called a mockumentary, it is only a mocking travesty of a film.

Who wants to see a bunch of adolescents filming themselves clowning around? It's not funny, it's not dramatic, it's not horrific, it's not romantic, it's not informative. I've seen home movies of better quality.

Even the photography is poor.

It is totally pointless. See it if you don't care how you waste time or you're drunk, drugged on prescription or hard drugs or high from something.

The dialogue is appalling. If this is reality, let me out.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Not even a black comedy., 1 October 2011
2/10

This film is one of the worst I've seen. The four female characters are hideous - spoiled, whining, loud mouthed, overbearing, jealous, precious. In real life I can't imagine people like these four being tolerated.

The plot is poor, the execution slow and tortured. It takes an age for the movie to gain any impetus. The point of the film, I imagine, is to examine the lives of couples who are married. It would certainly put off anybody contemplating union.

The male characters act like puppets, afraid to hurt the feelings of their counterparts. They appear to be unable to exert their own will.

Avoid the film if you come across it. A waste of nearly two hours with an ending which is totally incredible.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Far fetched, 26 March 2011
5/10

Billed as a science fiction movie, it steals from other recent sci-fi films but when analyzed, it turns out to be an old fashioned war movie with lots of smoke, haze and gunfire. As the Germans and Russians are no longer creditable enemies, aliens fill the void to enable the US Marines to step in and fight. Despite the fact that many cities throughout the globe have been destroyed, a unit of marines save the day. Children and women make up part of a group of civilians that require rescuing which takes the band of marines away from the main battle and this adds sentimentality to the story. Clichés abound. See also myblogmovies.blogspot for more.

1 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Unbelievable and trite, 16 December 2010
5/10

The story idea of this movie wasn't bad but the execution was poor.

Renee Zellweger seemed stiff and her character was an irritation. She flounced around from scene to scene in a daze.

Kevin Bacon on the other hand turned in a reasonable performance but was in too few scenes.

Logan Lerman did a good job as one of the sons, however I doubt that the other son, in the 1950s, would actually have acted as he did in this film. The second son's character was over the top and ridiculous.

I didn't enjoy the movie because it seemed to have no point to it. The conflict appeared contrived.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Flawed system revealed, 13 February 2010
8/10

This movie was trying to make a point which it does quite well. At first it appears to be not so different from films which show why people are driven to seek revenge. But it's not so straight forward as one learns when nothing happens for a good period of time.

Democracies like the US, the UK and Australia lean too heavily on the side of the individual which then adversely affects the quality of life for the majority and community in general.This is aptly demonstrated in the movie.

However much one agrees with the actions of the main character, the fact remains that this is a work of fiction and, in life, people suffer the frustrations of a very flawed justice system. This movie is well constructed but the ending could have been more outrageous.

So enjoy the film because there is no real justice.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
A real disaster, 22 September 2008
1/10

This is a pointless film because there is no context for what occurs.

The camera-work is shoddy. It is meant to be like this but that is no excuse to serve up such an amateurish effort as entertainment.

The film is a series of jerky scenes. There is no intelligent conversation. There is no reason for the main characters to do what they do. Nothing is credible. It is more fantasy than science fiction, however fantasy is usually crisply presented with a decent story.

What surprises me is how a studio could have allowed this to be produced. There should have been a warning on the cover instead of the false advertising. I am disgusted with the system - is it the same one which allowed cowboys to trash the financial system?

0 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Highly dubious., 6 August 2007
3/10

Unbelievable. Literally. This was a poor mini-series and I'm surprised Stephen King was associated with the project. I thought the idea might be of interest but found the execution hard to swallow. Nothing made sense. A film about good and evil but it was badly made and the characters were either one extreme or another - soppy or incredibly evil. It was also too long and slow and one had to suspend belief entirely to view it right through to the end.

The film started off in a fashion which could have had some promising plot lines but I found that as the plot progressed, it became increasingly ridiculous. And in the last section, the plot was simply stupid. I wondered whether this outing was catering for five year olds rather than for adults who might wish to enjoy an entertaining idea, intelligently crafted.

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Over-hyped, 15 July 2006
7/10

There was action aplenty. There were surprises and lots of stunts. There were some interesting and witty lines. There were masses of special effects.

The main character, Jack Sparrow, was superb in a funny, understated way. He was no super hero.

The movie was light hearted which, in my view, was its major strength.

However, the film was too long with too much repetition of certain water scenes. The ending was poor because it pointed to yet another sequel. Without the pre screening hype it may have passed for a good entertainment but the hype was over the top and the product failed to live up to it.


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