Reviews written by registered user

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

Spectre (2015/I)
7 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Steer clear of this turkey, 6 March 2016

I have just watched the new Bond offering - please please will someone put this franchise out of its misery as it is well past its sell by date. Everyone knows that when you see a Bond film much is formulaic but in this case it is just plain old tired. The plot is pedestrian, the acting (such as it is) is dire and the directing - well Mendes needs to run a mile away from the next one and stick to what he's good at. Daniel Craig has done some good work in his career but I'm sure this has to be his worst and I trust he won't be doing the next one. The whole film is such a crushing bore I would rather watch paint dry than even think about watching it again. Please don't waste two and a half hours of your life and steer clear of this turkey.

6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Disappointed, 30 January 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

In view of the ratings here on IMDb, the high number of Oscar nominations, and the stellar cast, I was really looking forward to seeing this film. Well, all I can say is that I was totally disappointed. The story had so much potential and it was not exploited in any way. On a similar theme, I have seen better episodes of Hustle and Leverage than this film. Also what was the 'bad hair' theme all about as there were a number of characters with real hair issues and none of it 'false' all real - weird. After about an hour in to this my wife and I looked at each other and said "I thought it was me" and we were pleased that we'd both come to the same conclusion. All in all, if you really want to see this film view it objectively and forget the hype and hopefully you won't been so disappointed afterwards.

Crossroad (2012)
1 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Absolute load of rubbish, 22 August 2013

This is a typical piece of Christian oriented pap. The reviewers that compare this film to Crash are deluded. The writer is trying to emulate that genre but that is where the comparison ends. Typical of a Christian writer - see a good secular idea and copy it to fit a christen text. Dreadful and with all the original thinking of a dead hamster!! Where they got the actors from I can only hazard a guess. The Café owner and his wife were so typically Jewish yet they were using text from Paul's letter to the Romans which is clearly a New Testament script. Please do your research before you write any more of this utter rubbish. Steer well clear of this film unless you happen to be a Christian evangelist air brain.

4 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Poor Excuse for a film, 21 February 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I really don't get it, I really don't!! The plot was thin, the characters were thinner. Whoever described this film as comedy clearly has no concept of comedy. Gene Hackman as a comedy lead - come on!! OK so it's a dysfunctional family, I get that, OK so they are child protégés, I get that - but it goes no where, no development of plot or characters. If you want to see a real comedy about a dysfunctional family see The Adams Family where at least Angelica Huston acts. The scene when Hackman tells her he's dying is so bad as to be unbelievable, she is not a bad actress but the direction and lines in that scene destroy her credibility. How this film was nominated for an Oscar is beyond me, well actually when you think about it no, because the academy is full of pretentious sycophants who just vote on what they are told is good writing rather than actually putting some thought behind it - avoid this film like the plague.

Entering Sparing Match, 11 February 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

An interesting take on a subject we all know the outcome of but good to see the background. I wasn't aware of John Birt's role in the scheme as he later became better known as the Director General of the BBC. The film is a classic David (literally) and Goliath contest in which Nixon clearly underestimates his opponent who (if the film is to be believed) doesn't actually wake up to the fact that he is dealing with a consummate manipulator until it's nearly too late. Nixon, played superbly by Frank Langella is an interesting contrast to the portrayal of 'Tricky Dicky' by Anthony Hopkins in 'NIXON'. Langella gave a less credible impression of Nixon but I think gave us a more incisive view of his character. The most intriguing aspect was the boxing match analogy with the underdog most definitely coming out on top. However, you almost felt that by the end of the film Nixon was desperate to unburden his soul and came away from the process in a better frame of mind, as was depicted in the 'Italian Shoe scene'. Altogether a really well crafted film as we have come to expect from Ron Howard and full marks for the Casting Director as all the cast were excellent, especially the leads. Five Oscar Nominations but none in the bag is a pity, particularly for Langella but 2009 was a good year for leading men.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Intelligent thriller, 10 February 2012

What a superb film. The feel of the 'time' was captured wonderfully, so much so you could smell the cigarette smoke. This is a film which requires a large degree of investment from the viewer as you cannot miss a scene, do so and you will be lost. You need to be tuned in to the fact that this was the end of the Cold War and all the protagonists were looking towards a very unsure future, all of which adds to the underlying paranoia. But the clear winner for me was the outstanding performance of Gary Oldman - measured, understated sheer brilliance. It's not just what he says its what he doesn't say that is marks his performance: its the gestures, the glances and the silence, yes the silence which at times is deafening. It is amazing to me that this is his first Oscar nomination for best actor. Compare this performance with LEON and particularly STATE OF GRACE which are totally different but serve to emphasize the versatility of his acting talent. Good luck Gary for the Oscars. Go and see this film but be prepared to 'pay attention'!

9 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
A wonderful study of declining years., 10 February 2012

I watched the Iron Lady last night and quite frankly I am amazed at some of the reviews which state that the film is a disappointment despite an outstanding performance from Meryl Streep. Firstly, I really don't think that this film is about politics and naturally all those who viewed it expecting to see a retrospective of Margarets time as PM would be disappointed. But the film is about life. All of us could,in time , suffer in the same way. The film is clearly about the ravages of old age on a person who literally was a giant among men. She had to fight at every turn for her principles and whether you agreed with them or not she had more courage than most. The greatest compliment I can make about this film is that from the first few minutes I was not watching Meryl Streep but Thatcher herself as her performance is truly amazing. It isn't the fact that it is an impression as some have said it is the subtle nuances - movement of the head, a slight cough, a look etc. It isn't surprising that she has been Oscar nominated for this performance and in my view she will win hands down. If you want to see a well constructed study of life in decline go see this film but if you're looking for a biopic of her life in power don't bother.

19 out of 26 people found the following review useful:
Shallow and Unconvincing, 5 February 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I am astounded that this film is amongst the Oscar nominees for 2012. If there was a category for Best Travel Film it would win hands down as the cinematography is first class in its depiction of Paris. But the plot is so shallow as to be transparent. The characters are likewise and define the term cliché. Owen Wilsons whiney portrayal of what is clearly supposed to be Woody Allen himself is irritating in the extreme, except when he puts Michael Sheens character in his place with a critique of a Picasso painting, which I admit was the highlight of the film. I am aware of Allens politics but surely he is more intelligent than hitting us over the head with his obscenely wealthy American 'sledgehammer' of a Republican family. The film is worth the nomination for Art Direction but the other three nominations are undeserved and to think that this sorry apology of a film has been nominated for best film when Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy has been overlooked is nothing short of scandalous. If you want some good shots of Paris see the film otherwise pass it by.

2 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Pretty poor, 17 December 2010

OK I bought the film knowing that it would be an action movie but what I got was an action movie where the stunts were way over the top, even for Cruise. Suspension of belief or what!! Talking of what!! What was Cameron Diaz thinking of when she agreed to co star in this not very thinly veiled attempt to portray her as a girly bimbo - surely the studio could have found some second rate actress to hang on the aliens arm. Oh I forgot, they wanted the box office kudos and dollars and boy did they get it. Summer madness sort of film, CD is always easy on the eye and Cruise did his Mission Impossible thing and cashed the cheque - Kerrr-ching!!

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Missed opportunity, 3 November 2010

I bought this on the strength of it's 7.4 review total on IMDb. I worry sometimes about how people review films as this was a real missed opportunity. The premise and plot were really good but it was let down by poor writing, stilted and inept dialogue and amateur direction. The cinematography helps as it is shot in a dark film noir style and the colour contrasts are vivid. The lead lady I understand is the wife of the director, well she acts like she's just been brought off the street and told to read her lines. Very disappointing as the the storyline has so much potential and I gave it5 pretty much for that. Interesting to see so much smoking portrayed, we've come a long way since '87.

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