Reviews written by registered user
sibisi73

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

Page 1 of 11:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
107 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
The ducks of Hazzard., 31 August 2005
3/10

Perhaps if I'd never grown up and still been the ten-year old boy I was when I first sat down to watch the TV series I would have come away from this film with a big smile on my face. It's difficult to see who this appeals to - if you're old enough to remember the original series then you must surely be too mature to find anything worthwhile about this pap. If you're too young to remember it, then what's the point going in the first place?

This is a film so in love with it's own idiocy that it feels like a party you haven't been invited to. It looks like it should be a barrels of laughs, but you'd be hard pushed to raise a smirk. The whole enterprise hasn't an ounce of invention or wit, and the cast of characters are two-dimensional stereotypes with little or no redeeming features. Script, direction and acting are all abysmally amateur. The self-referential nostalgia factor (everything from "Smokey and the Bandit" to "Wonder Woman" is obvious and embarrassing, and Jessica Simpson should be taken out the back and shot for her performance (which is what you'd expect to happen in Georgia if you believe what you see in this film). William Scott's gurning isn't much better.

Awful in almost every aspect, don't waste your money for a few moments of great car stunts.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Low budget, but high standards., 7 August 2005
6/10

The first thing to get past is the fact that this straight-to-video thriller is shot on video, and, as such, looks low budget, and feels like a TV show. But once you can get past that, the video works in its favour, encouraging you to take more from the performances and the story. It's seemingly more realistic, with, literally a clearer view of what's going on. The direction is very simple, but this helps to concentrate on the characters and the plot.

The three leads give credible performances, and there are enough ambiguities in the story to keep you guessing until the end (despite some unfortunate holes in credibility). A bigger budget and bigger stars would easily see this type of thing in your local cinema. As it is, a competent thriller, a surprising straight-to-video hit.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Pedictable but harmless horror., 7 August 2005
4/10

Not bad, made-for-TV movie from Aaron Spelling and co. Although predictable for the most part, it has engaging lead performances and a sense of straight-laced melodrama that offers up a few surprises intermittently. Fans of "Charlie's Angels" will be interested to see Jackson here before she went on to bigger things, but the lead performance from Pamela Franklin is just as noteworthy (whatever happened to her career?).

Moderately successful atmospherically, but hardly ground-breaking, it nevertheless isn't the worst of the wave of similar films from the same period, and it certainly has its moments.

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Disappointing mockumentary., 14 April 2005
5/10

Last summer I spent a few hours on a boat on the Thames in the company of deranged cabaret duo Kiki and Herb. It wasn't the first time I'd experienced life through the eyes of the gin-soaked Kiki, and won't be the last if I can help it. These lives shows fused a knowing irony of contemporary pop songs, skewed into barely recognisable, angst ridden torchsongs, with the desperate (and desperately sad) musings of a woman who's lived a coke-fuelled, battle-scarred life, and who still stands tall and does it her way. Justin Bond's slight frame holds this beast at bay until the moment she storms the room in a deluge of bitterness, rage and child-like innocence, making Liza look astonishingly well-adjusted.

It's difficult to make any connection between that night and this movie, as the energy and spontaneity of Kiki and Herb's live show is lost. The character is so firmly embedded in Bond, and so lived-in, that we never doubt for a moment that she exists - that the desperate naivety and need for acclaim is genuine. But the film relies solely on this personality, and offers very little to compare with the live experience. The build-up is too long, and despite the (often very funny) repartee it begins to flag. Without the songs and the tragedy of her past Kiki comes over as just another drag queen, all mouth and no trousers, and the bitching begins to drag after a while.

Kiki and Herb deserve immortality on the big screen, but this isn't it. They deserve to have their story told, their live show celebrated. But this film does none of those things. See them live.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
This shadow has little substance., 14 April 2005
5/10

A inventive conceit is given lacklustre treatment in this homage to the great silent horror "Nosferatu" (1922). Merhige's film is a strange amalgam of genres, straddling horror, comedy and costume drama, but never really settles into a comfortable position. There are some astonishingly eccentric performances (as you would expect) from the likes of Malkovich, Dafoe and Izzard but the story never opens up enough to remain consistently interesting. It's a marvellous idea that Murnau found, in Schreck, a real life vampire to bring a genuine horror to his seminal movie, but the narrative doesn't develop beyond the obvious bemusement of his fellow cast, and the maniac compulsion of an obsessive director aiming to finish his 'masterpiece'. The characters remain largely two-dimensional, and the full horror is never fully exploited, leaving a half-formed horror parody, complete with torch-wielding eastern Europeans and cross-bearing local innkeepers.

A film for those who enjoy full blooded performances (although how Cary Elwes ever got an acting job is still a mystery), and have a passing interest in the history of horror. But, sadly, it feels like it could have been so much more.

26 out of 29 people found the following review useful:
The invisible plot., 9 April 2005
4/10

Another cheapie from Monogram, once again casting Lugosi as a hypnotic murderer, lit from below as is expected. This time, however, he's the innocent victim, entranced by the sight of his 'dead' wife who appears beneath his window and seemingly 'commands' him to kill (rather surreptitiously and for a reason not fully explained). Indeed, most of the plot isn't really fully explained, but it's academic. Instead of the plot, concentrate on the director's unusual flair, and the writers' penchant for a decent gag or two. It's these that elevate this slightly above the rest of its kind. Some interesting panning between rooms, and behind furniture, and a memorable shot of Lugosi leering direct to camera from behind his black robe show that director Lewis had, at least, a modicum of creativity. There's also a wicked sense of humour that takes you by surprise, and is handled well enough to complement the thriller element. Sadly, the performances are mundane, especially Lugosi, who, once again mugs and grimaces his way through the part. The film is stolen by Clarence Muse, superb as the amenable butler, Evans - although he does get all the best lines.

17 out of 23 people found the following review useful:
I agree, 17 March 2005

I am at one with the previous comment by Theo. This so-called 'documentary' is one of the most biased pieces of television I've seen in a long time. Irrespective of your opinion on the current case against Michael Jackson, you would still be hard pressed not to find this programme leaving a nasty taste. I find it hard to believe this could ever be shown if the case was taking place in the UK, as the whole tone implicitly suggests that Jackson grooms his young male friends, before rejecting them once puberty hits. There are a few interviewees who support Jackson, however, the editing and script are predominantly misrepresentative. There's a plethora of archive footage to back up the director's agenda, but very little in the way of investigative journalism. Indeed, a very dangerous film.

Cut and paste documentary film-making., 14 March 2005
2/10

This is a hastily assembled 'documentary', broadcast on British television shortly after the announcement of Prince Charles' and Camilla's engagement. It trawls through the history of the couple from their first meeting nearly three decades ago, and brings the story right up-to-date. There's barely any new footage, save for a selection of 'talking heads' interviews with those who think they are in the know, with the majority of the programme made up of news footage. A shameless cut-and-paste job that gives you some of the more obvious facts but leaves out anything exclusive or interesting, which may be of interest if you are unfamiliar with the whole saga, or if you've never seen a British newspaper in the last 10 years.

Wacko About Jacko (2005) (TV)
12 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
Unusual angle amidst the many Jackson documentaries., 1 February 2005
8/10

This is just one of many documentaries screened in the build-up to Jackson's trial on allegations of child sex abuse. Most are cheap cash-ins for the TV companies, but this was an interesting and eye-opening account, not of Jackson, but of a group of his fans. In fact, the link to Jackson isn't necessarily the most intriguing part of the film, rather it's the way the adulation is borne out by a group of young, seemingly rational men and women. Leveugle's success is that she never mocks her subjects (which would seem the easiest thing to do) and they come across, for the most part, as people with a passion for their hobby - it just happens that their hobby is following one of the world's most famous men. The film avoids the 'freakshow' elements on the whole (except the inclusion of a Jackson wannabe whose adulation has made him cosmetically change his appearance to resemble the star), and is better for it. This leaves us with a balanced and honest film that goes some way to understanding the power of celebrity and the nature of obsession.

3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Thankless part for a declining star., 31 January 2005
3/10

Yet another in the long list of Lugosi's B-movies as his career was in decline, this is of interest only to those who wish to follow that downward trajectory. Here he plays a stricken scientist, whose experiments have rendered him with ape-like instincts and a mass of facial hair. It's a thankless part that leaves Lugosi stumbling around for the most part in a simian stoop, leaving the best parts of the story to his supporting cast. But there's neither suspense nor horror enough to cover up the limits of the cast and the budget of the production. Ford and Currie, as the journo duo offering light relief, seem to have escaped from a different movie, and Urecal's wide-eyed posturing is ham of the highest order. Pity the unfortunate Van Horn, who spends his time in an unconvincing gorilla suit throughout. Oddly, there's an obscure, self-referential ending, which serves little or no purpose as far as I can see, and which points up the apparent irregularity of the comedy/horror subject matter.

A short waste of time, but a waste of time nonetheless.


Page 1 of 11:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]