Reviews

6 Reviews
Sort by:
Earth (2007)
3/10
Depends what you expect
27 March 2011
I suffered through it, but wasn't disappointed. A contradiction? No - the titles gave me a good idea of what to expect. Almost anything under the Wide World of Disney banner will be a let-down to anyone over the age of five. It really should have a warning "The following programme is not suitable for those expecting a documentary". Disney obviously haven't improved since The Living Desert; one of the greatest documentaries ever made has been reduced to the pretty-pictures-of-baby-animals-and-scenery level. If you want to see how it should be done, watch the original BBC version with the guy who knows what he's doing, David Attenborough. At least I saw it on a commercial station, so the the ads provided some relief!
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Hotel Rwanda (2004)
7/10
Over rated
25 April 2010
I just saw Hotel Rwanda on PBS, and after reading other reviews here, I must admit I felt let down. It was admittedly well made, but didn't leave any lasting impression. Probably because it was basically an excellent solo show by Don Cheadle. Sophie Okonedo was badly miscast; whoever saw a Tutsi that light-complexioned? Nick Nolte just wasn't believable as a General. Some may criticise me for being too bloodthirsty, but apart from the episode when Cheadle was driving over the bodies in the road, the depiction of the treatment of Tutsi was too long-range and detached. It seemed like a news report viewed from a distance, without any real involvement. This is the story of an horrific episode, but fails to press its point.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Sorry! (1981–1988)
1/10
Pathetic!
23 March 2009
I'm surprised that anyone involved with the production of this series would actually admit responsibility. The script is so unfunny it must have been written by someone who failed the entrance exam for the Canadian Comedy Writers' Union (and that's saying something!). Get out your binoculars if you want, but there's nothing resembling a joke in sight. Ronnie Corbett must have been flat broke to demean himself with this rubbish. The rest of the cast are so lacking in any kind of acting or comedic ability I'm amazed it lasted past the first episode - correction, past the auditions. All I can say to those who are amused by it is that they must be very easily entertained. And it's obvious that the production costs must have been all of ₤100 per episode. And just in case anyone thinks I'm commenting as a foreigner who is unfamiliar with English humour, I must add that I am indeed English.
2 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Unbreakable (2000)
1/10
Booooooring!
19 July 2006
I put this movie second on my list. Not a list of great movies, but boring and pointless movies. It went on and on and on, and I sat there waiting for something to actually happen, and I got the impression that the cast weren't quite sure what was going on either. I needn't have wasted my time! Leonard Maltin got it right when he described it as "a shaggy dog story" - but the twisted little denouement hardly qualified as a real ending. It just sort of faded into nothing! By the way, the movie that takes first place on my "boring" list is "The Spy who came in from the cold". That takes the award as being the only movie I ever walked out on!
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Queer as Folk (2000–2005)
Not worth all the fuss!
23 August 2005
Last night I saw "Queer As Folk" for the first time, and it was a complete waste of an hour. The acting (with the exception of Sharon Gless) was about on the level of a poor soap-opera and the plot was negligible. Although the location is supposed to be in the US, it was obvious to anyone living here that in fact it was filmed in Toronto. Canadian accents stood out immediately, as did the general look of the buildings. Most of the scenes of sex and nudity were completely gratuitous, adding nothing to the story, and for those viewers who watch just for titillation, I would say rent a porn video. At least they don't pretend to be drama. I haven't been missing much!
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Read the Book!
11 August 2004
OK, it's a good movie. But I wonder why the credits say "based on the novel by E.R.Braithwaite"? The book is actually a partial autobiography, and is a great read, filling in any gaps you may notice in the film. I read it before I saw the movie, and was a little disappointed with the changes and omissions. I suppose casting a famous American in the lead was the only way to attract US audiences, but putting overage actors in kids' parts looked strange. In answer to one of your reviewers, the "offensive object" which was being burned near the start of the movie was a used tampon. I don't understand why this wasn't explained - but maybe when the movie was made this word couldn't be used on screen. In that case, why include the episode at all?
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this