Reviews written by registered user
|84 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Firstly, there are some very positive points about this film. All the performances are very good, the photography is excellent and the basic premise of the film, that five mountaineers find a kidnapped child buried in a forest is a solid basis for a gripping thriller. I cannot help but feel that the whole thing could have been so much better. So much more suspense could have been wrung out of the story as the group play cat and mouse with the villains without resorting to the big guns and shoot- em - up action that spoilt the film for me. The finale in particular I found totally unconvincing and rather disappointing with its reliance on gratuitous violence. OK - I know the story rests on the unfeeling nature of the villains and their quick resort to killing (and those who are in pursuit of them)but I still cannot help feeling that with a bit more subtlety this could have been a really great thriller. Full marks for trying and a good effort for low budget British flick but could have done much better!
The House of Elliot is currently being shown each weekday evening on ITV3. I never saw it first time around in the early '90's - for some reason, it just did not appeal to me despite its original popularity. I'm glad I didn't see it actually because I would have been denied the great pleasure of seeing it for the first time now! All I can say is what a great programme it is. The likable characters soon have you completely involved in their trials and tribulations.If anyone is looking for great art, this is not it - however, it is an engaging, undemanding and enjoyable way to pass an hour's viewing. The period settings, costumes and attention to detail are fantastic - the show must have cost a fortune to make. Particularly impressive was the episode set in Paris, which was obviously filmed on location - all I can think was that the outside scenes must have been filmed at some unearthly hour in the morning when the city was quiet - however it was done it was an amazing feat! Well done to all concerned with this gem of a series.
I saw this film for the first time last night on DVD. I was prepared to give it a go as I do like most of the cast. The film is quite simply appalling and frankly I am surprised that any of the players ever worked again. The script stinks, the acting is dreadful, the comic timing and delivery of lines woeful. In particular, Joanne Whalley's scouse accent is risible. It seemed to last forever and considering it was supposed to be a comedy I sat through it without so much as raising a smile. I was soooooo grateful when it was finally over. Do not waste time on sitting through this car crash of a film, life is short and you will never get the time back again.
Each time you see a lousy film, you think nothing could possibly be worse until along comes something that blows the previous one out of the water for sheer awfulness. This is true of 'Taken'. Up to pres, it is the worst pile of junk I've had the misfortune to sit through in quite some time. Quite simply I am outraged that this should score so highly on IMDb and that I should have been taken in by it! Liam Neeeson goes through this looking like some badly made -up corpse, gaunt old features emphasized by an appalling hair-dye job, calculated to make him look younger and perversely emphasizing his age. Lousy script, lousy acting -the worst of which being the daughter who behaves like a demented 6 year old rather than a 17 year old asking to tour Europe. Why would anyone allow an obviously backward/retarded girl to do this? This film absolutely STINKS - it is utter RUBBISH!!!!!! Dozens of gangsters firing automatic weapons at one man and all missing the target etc.. the usual clichés, in fact its so bad its like a parody. Only watch this if you are a particularly unsophisticated/immature 15 year old boy because that's the only type of person who could possibly enjoy this garbage. Everyone has to pay their bills and Liam Neeson must have seen this as a way to pay his, because my God- he can't seriously have thought 'I've just GOT to play this role!' when the script landed on his mat! TRASH that hits a new low for the braindead.
This really is a poor film. It has a fine cast and it should have been much better, but it has all the hallmarks of an international co-production - bad direction, leading to poor acting (an astonishingly hammy / embarrassing piece of acting from the usually good Burn Gorman),confusing storyline, poor sex scenes etc.. etc.. The whole thing just does not hang together and the ending is just appalling. The pretentious, intellectual mathematical mumbo jumbo spouted throughout just makes your eyes glaze over I'm afraid. If you are a discerning film watcher you will know exactly what I mean. There is NO WAY that this could even remotely be called good. It isn't anywhere near as entertaining as even Inspector Morse or Midsomer Murders so take my advice and give it a wide berth!
For the first two thirds of its length, this film is a first rate thriller. It establishes the characters very well and you quickly become engaged in the plot, which is made very easy to follow. The acting is excellent,( in particular Clovis Cornillac as the malevolent private detective Plender). There are moments of true tension. Its definitely one of the most enjoyable films of its type I've seen in years. Then BAM - Vincent is arrested for murder and the plot descends quickly into the worst kind of overwrought Hollywood action flick - the kind of thing that Harrison Ford does when he's in his innocent man wrongly-accused mode (complete with implausible stunts). I was really disappointed as the characters become involved in a melodramatic pantomime. What the hell happened?? A superb thriller ruined in the last half hour!!! I have given it a six rating because I enjoyed more of it than not - had it not been for the last half hour it would have got a nine!!
From now on, I do not think that I shall really take any notice of the scores that films get on this site. How on earth this effort with a weak plot and dreadful acting can score almost 8 is beyond me. One of the most grating aspects of the film are the ridiculous accents which sound like a parody. The switching back and forth between English and Russian is embarrassingly awful. Vincent Cassel wins the award for hammiest actor with his pantomime villain, (the scene with the baby by the river is cringeworthy!!) the Naomi Watts character is as weak as dishwater and Viggo Mortensen has to be one of the most over-rated actors of all time. The 'plot', such as it is, has no tension whatsoever. I'm sure I would have loved the violence when I was 14 but more sophisticated film - goers should not be fooled by some of the positive comments others have placed here. The film's a stinker, pure and simple.
Just got back from an afternoon screening of this film. Even though the film has been showing for almost three weeks now, the cinema was PACKED with (mostly) over 50s. Firstly, I am a HUGE fan of ABBA (have been since the early 70s, even before their Eurovision win) and I so wanted to enjoy this film but I'm afraid that I felt like watching it with my hands covering my face and peeking through my fingers, such was my embarrassment! Overacted to the extreme by all concerned it is truly cringeworthy. The dreadful Julie Walters was the usual awful hammy, mugging Mrs. Overall persona that she always is (you may have guessed that I can't STAND this particular 'national treasure'.I really had to force myself to go to see it knowing that this ghastly woman was in it.) The music is actually tolerably sung by most of the cast (with the exception of Pierce Brosnan) but the 'OMG' hystrionics of the actors to show that they are having 'fun' is just appalling. Incidentally, not one person in the cinema laughed at the 'funny' bits. All in all, a miscast (the leads were WAY too old) misfire and one that any discerning cinema goer will find poor.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This mess just reminded me of one of those 70s pan European co-productions that were so prominent at the time. The characters inhabit a Disneyesque, sanitised version of 1920s Austria where everyone and everything is scrubbed shinily clean and everyone walks aboutwearing beautiful clothes. The story itself would be a good basis for adecent dramatic film but as soon as I heard the dreadful dubbed voice coming out of Heinz Hoenig's mouth I knew this was a stinker! Why does the film show Halsman alive and well in America in the 1950s spoiling any dramatic tension - we already know in the first 2 minutes of the film that he is going to be free, whats the point watching any further? (I personally didn't know who he was before watching the film) Why does Martine McCutcheon have to talk with that ridiculous American accent in a film set in Austria????????? All in all an unwatchable mess. Badly scripted, badly directed and badly acted. AVOID!!!!!!!!!
I really enjoyed this lighthearted 'feelgood' comedy. OK, it might be a bit old - fashioned and predictable when it comes to portraying gay stereotypes, but it is an affectionate and completely inoffensive film that passed an enjoyable 90 minutes or so for me. The film is populated by a cast of likable characters led by the sweet Maximillian Bruckner as 'Ecki', a young man who plays in goal for a smalltown football team and who is outed as gay by his teammates. The team and some of the townsfolk are particularly cruel to both Ecki and his parents following the 'outing'. (The running gag of the old man coming into the family's bakery shop and telling 'gay' jokes is quite funny however.) The film concentrates on Ecki's determination to put together a gay football team that can take on his tormentors and win. This leads to an enjoyable series of adventures in which his family, particularly his father, have to come to terms with his sexuality and in which he manages to find love along the way. Altogether a nice fairy-tale (excuse the pun!) - everyone even manages to live happily ever- after! See it and enjoy!
|Page 1 of 9:||        |