Reviews written by registered user

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

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

Number 13 (2006) (TV)
5 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
A very poor show, 14 June 2007

As a big M.R James fan I am slighty worried about the quality of the two resent BBC4 productions of his work. True it is about time the stories of M.R James were re-told but to be honest these attempts at horror are nothing more than second rate at best.

They are not nearly dark enough for my liking the atmosphere is really non-existent and the ghosts are a real disappointment, I agree one shouldn't see much of the ghost in stories like this but what you do see has to live up to the picture one has in ones imagination and to be honest these weren't even close.

So my advice to you is watch the Laurence Gordon Clark adaptations made in the 70's available through the BFI if you want to see the infinitely more terrifying versions.

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
The second best Will hay film....., 3 December 2006

This film is definitely up there with the best of Mr Hay's films, though I must say Will hay's best films only include Graham Moffet and Moore Marriot.

I'm I big Will Hay fan and for a twenty year old I think that says a lot for the these films. Where's that fire is is one of the very best Will Hay films but I'd say its pipped to the post by Oh Mr Porter which has to be the best but I'd say this is a close second.

It has the funniest scene in any Will Hay film, with the main trio trying to carry a fireman's pole across a busy London street is a simple idea but in this case it's inspired. Watch out for Charles Altrey as the annoying public school boy.

This film is rare I know 80 year old who hasn't seen it since the 40's so it's a crime that it isn't on DVD or in the Will Hay collection. But it's on ebay and other sites so if you look hard enough you'll find it and trust me its well worth the wait.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
BOND IS BACK! again..................................., 30 November 2006

Well I've just gazed my eyes upon this film and I have to say I enjoyed it even though from my point of view it didn't feel like a bond film at all and heres why.....

I'm not a bond fan; I think 70 per cent of Bond films should be taken out and blown up by M.I.6 agents, but maybe that's the picky film buff inside me shinning through.

My favourite Bond is Goldeneye, not because it was the first Bond I saw at the cinema, but mainly because of the style of the film. It had cold war bite to it, which was I feel incredibly refreshing when one compares it to the vast majority of the Bond films, which almost seem Lord of the Rings like in there blatant disregard for reality or common sense.

I was open minded when I first heard that Daniel Craig was to be the next British actor to be Bond, he has an air of tangible mystery about him, which even makes a red blooded heterosexual like myself wetter than a Saleen Dion single. I loved his performance and that of Eva Green who is I think one of the most beautiful women alive right now. Vulnerable and yet strong as is Bond which of course is why they fall in love.

Next the bad guy's, now I can't remember his name and to honest I'm not that bothered, but the guy with one eye was brilliant, understated malevolence. So much better than he over the top anal-retentive villains we usually have to deal with in these films.

The story as I have to say rather weak until Eva Green turned up, it was almost as if Martin Campbell wanted us to see want Bond can do to inanimate bad guys. But it's not as if the last 21 films have given us any clue that he's a bit of a nutter. But as soon as Eva turned up the real fireworks start to fly. The script is superb in the exchanges between Green and Craig and I feel the line "I've got no armour left" summed up why the film was so good and why Daniel Craig is a damn good Bond.

007 is a man and like all men he falls in love, he makes mistakes and he hurts people mentally and physically. This Bond is human, he is believable, vulnerable and not invincible and I feel unless you have that in any action character Bond or nay the audience will switch off as they know before the 2 hours are up half the cast will be dead ready for some steam action before the titles roll.

This film didn't make me switch off it engaged me the whole way through and I have to say it's one of the best spy/action thrillers I've ever seen. I almost think it's too good, too intelligent to be a Bond film along with the other 30 per cent of the 22 007 movies.

But I say hats off the Martin Campbell who saved the Bond Brand in 1995 and I dare say as saved it again for another decade. But anyone who really knows about films must realise that how good a Bond film is doesn't depend on who is cast as the lead, but who is behind the camera directing the film and I can only wish that Craig's second outing as Bond will be made as well made as this one.

But I know and I think we all know that the only way is down for Daniel Craig's incarnation of 007.

31 out of 47 people found the following review useful:
Brilliant!!!!!, 12 October 2006

This has to be one of my favourite films ever, I'll admit it's not the greatest work of art ever made and to be honest it never tries to be. I get very annoyed with these armchair film experts who think just because they've sat on their backsides for twenty years, neglecting everything except their expanding waist lines feel they have a god given right to pass judgement on a great film maker's hard work. I've made films and let me tell you EXPERTS out their it's the hardest thing you could ever undertake, harder even than getting off your butts and getting some exercise.

Baron Munchausen is in my opinion a visionary masterpiece, like Brazil and Time Bandits its pure escapism, but intelligent python-Esq escapism. I sat down recently and watched all three films with my girlfriend, (not in one night) and was dismayed when she started yawning and checking her watch every five minutes. I think I've come to a conclusion why......

Munchausen is a film that people with an imagination will enjoy, but if sadly your a member of the Ally Mcbeal, lets go shopping watch American Pie and wear what every other moron wears generation, you won't get this film. Mainly because Gilliam is far more intelligent than you, both in his use of visual metaphors and sexual innuendo but also in the fact as a director he thinks of things even Tim Burton would be jealous of.

Okay the film tales off towards the end, but after to been subjected to such a rich bombardment of visual genius can you blame Terry for being tired.

9 out of 10 And my favourite bit is when Eric Idle chases the bullet!!!!! GENIUS!!!

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
A very good film, with a very important message., 4 January 2006

Criticism of this film ready does amuse me, firstly I'd like to say a big thank you to Ridley Scott for pointing out especially to our heavily brainwashed American and Jewish counterparts of the sheer stupidity and pointlessness of the crusades and indeed the sheer stupidity and pointlessness of the ongoing disputes in the so called holy land.

Basically I love this film solely because it makes the wonderful point of that what is the holy land???.........basically a giant sand pit where over the last 2000 years and indeed beyond narrow minded fools have thought over their bigoted religious ideologies, believing blindly in what their greedy religious leaders tell them. It also makes the point that we Christians are indeed what I can only describe as bast***s declaring war throughout history in the name of god to gain land which doesn't belong to us so we can exploit the profits of that land for the sake of our own fat greedy self-indulgent populous. Am I taking about Iraq or the crusades here???? You decide my friends.

I am Christian but sadly am ashamed to be so, I pray ever day not in church not in a temple stained with the blood of ten thousand so call crusaders or pilgrims, but under an oak tree in my garden. For God created nature and indeed man and everything we see that isn't man made. Men created religion to control us and lie to men, I'm glad to say organised religion is somewhat laughed upon now in my country now days, not because I disagree with the moral messages it conveys but because I can't trust our so called leaders both spiritual and political.

But anyway to some up, to anyone who says in the usual crash o.t.t manner "This film sucks" I say you are wrong, this film is more than Gladiator or any other resent epic primarily because of its relevance not only now and but throughout history and I dare say sadly it's message will still be of relevance for many generations to come.

20 out of 26 people found the following review useful:
Killing the Rex kills Jurassic Park, 6 February 2005

For me the T-Rex is Jurassic Park, Everything brilliant and groundbreaking about the First film revolves around the Rex.

Jurassic Park was perhaps a critical flop, but it's importance regarding the incredible C.G.I must never be forgotten. Orginanly the dinosaurs where going to be brought to life using animated models(like Wallace and Gromit) for example only a tad more realistic obviously and full size anamatronic models, used in the T-Rex close ups.

But Spielberg wasn't satisfied with the quality of the animation, despite Phil Tippert using the motion blur to make the movement of the models less static and more fluid. Then Tippet suggesting trials with C.G.I which was used for the first time by I.L.M in 85 on Young Sherlock Holmes, the rest as they say is history. The results in my opinion are awesome I am a great fan of stop motion animation particularly Ray Harryhausens, But the the first time I saw the Tyrannosaur rip down the fence I could'not breath. I'm work in the industry now and it was that scene more perhaps than any other film that made me want to work in film.

The T-Rex is the star of Jurassic Park, the ending is probably one of my favourites of any movie, With the Rex saving the day at the last minute, Ripping apart the annoying Raptors.

The spinosaurs is a joke, it's not only a incredibly stupid idea to introduce a dinosaur that wasn't even mentioned in the first two films or the books on a island no larger than 8 miles long, I would have thought we would have noticed it useless it was a incredibly shy 12 tons killing machine.

But its not only the fact the appearance of the Spinosaurs is laughable, but it also breaks wind in the face of all the amazing work that was done on the first film.

For me the T-REX is an Icon of groundbreaking visual affects, in the same way the original King Kong was at the time and later 2001 and star wars could be considered as landmark films effects wise also. The Rex is the Star of Jurassic park and is still probably the most popular dinosaur ever just ask your kids what their favourite is! So killing it off in the first half hour of what was a terrible, terrible film for me is nothing less than proof that Hollywood is slowly losing it's soul. Ignoring what films should be about Artistic expression and intelligent entertainment and instead it seems from an Englishmans point of view that the Art of film making is being destroyed my big company's who's sole motivation is earning money. And the constant stream of insulting re-makes and lame brain sequels flying out of Hollywood only gives weight to my argument.

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

I am quite possibly one of Mr Kubrick's most devoted fans, I think he is the best film director the world has ever seen, and this film was his finest work. Here is my opinion why……………..

Visually 2001 has (for its time) the best special effects the film world has ever seen. It was (excuse the pun) an astronomical evolutionary jump forward, not only visually but also in way a film flows. It's totally unique; the use of music to propel the awe-inspiring plot and intellectual narrative is quite brilliant. Where as before music was mostly used to control the audience emotions.

Some of the shots and camera work in this film are GENIUS. THE FAMOUS JUMP SHOT, the Leopard with the light reflecting off its retinas as it consumes a dead Zebra. The beautiful space scenes, coupled with just the right use of eerie/spectacular music send shivers of wonder and awe down the spine.

The plot is a great one, I especially love the beginning and indeed the whole back bone of the story which suggests that we as a race did not come to be through just evolution or just divine intervention, BUT BOTH!!! This is the over riding plot in the film which comes to a conclusion in the end. But more on the end later.....

HAL is strangely in my opinion the best character in the film. In that he is the most complex and is the hardest to understand. Did HAL "EVOLVE" into something more than a computer??? And therefore doesn't it seem normal that he would indeed try to protect himself against being shut down my Dave and the others???? I feel the whole story is a superb intellectual battle, between HAL and the humans (which is also a physical battle), HAL and himself (against his programming)......and most importantly the humans fighting with their inner beliefs as they start to gain an insight into where their past and indeed their future originated and originates.

And now the ending, well Kubrick did say in interviews that I have heard that he didn't intend to puzzle people so much with the ending, its just the way it came across. But he was really very pleased that that's what happened. He never let on what he thought the ending meant (One of his prime principles in his films was to let the audience make up their own mind.) In my opinion its really quite simple and beautiful, Dave is transported though hyper space (either through mind or body, its a matter of opinion) then once their in this strange place in space or his mind, keeps seeing the black monolith and every time he touches it he seems to get older, then he finally ceases to hold a human from and his body dies of old age. Transporting him to a higher level of being.

In short no film has made me think and indeed ponder as much as this one. The visuals, music, and narrative are the best I've ever seen. The only fault is the acting, there's nothing bad about it but there's also nothing great about it. Maybe Stan wanted that know who knows>


8 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
Take out 5 chapters, put some made up rubbish in and you have Peter Jackson's The Two Towers, 18 December 2002

This film isn't just missing small parts of the story; it's missing five plus chapters!!!

The Fellowship of the Ring pleased me in that apart from small pieces it stayed, true to the original book. It was, I thought badly directed. I say this because I believe Jackson is at heart a producer. His organizational skills are amazing that at least is evident from the sheer amount of info LOTR holds within its pages. But he has no visual imagination whatsoever. Fellowship and The Two Towers are badly shot and badly edited. To put it in short I think Jackson is a second rate director who only got these films through blind enthusiasm, rather than ethical ability or quality of work.

The two Towers is an insult to everything Tolkien wrote, Peter Jackson for some unexplained reason has gone from following the book of FOTR pretty well to just doing what he wants in TTT. The first half of the film is more or less true to the book and I was enjoying it. Gollum especially, but about half way through just after King Theoden and his people left for Helms deep in anticipation of the attack of Sarumans army, THE STORY WENT OFF THE RAILS LIKE A SPEEDING TRAIN!!!!!!!!!!!! With Aragorn falling over the cliff after the fight with the Wolf riding Orcs (WHICH WASN'T IN THE BOOK) as if that wasn't laughable enough, then the plot goes off into a dreamland about Aragorn and Aowhen's (sorry if her names wrong:) love affair and the choices they must make for the greater good. Well nice try in giving the story more depth BUT STICK TO THE BOOK!!!!!!

I don't know about any of you but I went to see J.R.R Tolkiens The Lord of The Rings, not Peter Jacksons Lord of the Rings. Ok it's still an adaptation, but FOTR was more or less the same as the book, why ON EARTH insult Tolkein's fans and Tolkien himself by taking one of the greatest works of fiction ever and changing it in any way you want. I think it was an attempt to fool everyone who haven't got the sense to read the books and make more cash on the side.

THERE'RE AT LEAST FIVE CHAPTERS MISSING AT THE END OF THIS FILM. Now the people who I was chatting to today about it said well you cant have it all in the film it would be about 9 hours long. GRRRRRR! I said the annoying thing is if Jackson had left out all the rubbish he made up and put in the parts of the story, which should be there, YOU COULD HAVE FITTED IT ALL IN. I am of course referring to Shelob the great spider, which bites Frodo and then Sam takes on the Ring himself and the bookends on a cliff-hanger. He's chucked that out and put it in the next film, The Return of the King, which is already the longest book anyway, without putting huge chunks of story in from the other films.

If you ask me Jackson has quiet literally lost the plot and in some style, instead of creating a realistic and accurate film on Tolkein's book he's done what he wants with it and I'm sorry but I think he should be slapped for even having the nerve!!!!!

The only people who will totally enjoy this film are the ones who haven't read the books AND SADLY THERE ARE A LOT OF THEM.



Ok this film does have its faults its not a horror film for starts, its a action movie in the blodiest sense. It also fare share of cheese as does every other film in this genre! But I will say if your stupid enough to go into a film like this and honestly beleive your going to be intellectually challenged you might as well not spend the money on the ticket. On the good side(AND THE GOOD SIDE IS VERY GOOD) its unpredictable, fast paced, has humour in the right places, visualy great, top notch direction from a top notch director, good acting from unknown actors which from my point of view is great to see and has a good contemporary soundtrack, which is a great plus of most brit-flicks theses days. ITS BASICLY BETTER THAN ANYOTHER FILM IN THE GENRE AND YES I'VE SEEN THEM ALL. The U.S couldn't even dream in making a film as good as this, they like the people who dis this film lack vision, imagination, patience, humour and most of all a BRAIN!!!!!


Stop the comparisons, 15 May 2002

The vast mojority of people should judge episode 2 as a film on it's own and please stop marking it against the other Star Wars films, you can not and if you have any intellect what so ever should not. You cant compare totally different films it's just impossible to do, you can say which you enjoyed the most but don't rank the films in a table. My advice to anyone who doesn't know what to think of it is, don't listen to anyone else just judge it as a stand alone film.

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