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]
13 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

A big let down, 15 April 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I had never even heard of this film when I saw it on the shelf of my second hand DVD shop but at 75p I thought I'd give it a go. I was robbed. OK it wasn't that bad but considering the cast it had it was very poor. Brittany Murphy is uglied up with a terrible fright wig for some bizarre reason, Michael Biehn is phoning it in for most of the film and just when he starts to act he dies! The whole twist is centred around a woman called Loralee but it's blatantly obvious to anyone that loralee is a man in drag and again it's so obvious who that man is. I guessed it within ten minutes. The murders are also a let down, the film has an 18 rating and yet is almost entirely free of gore and bloodshed. Even the killing of the bad guy is without the required splatter of a stalk and slash film. With cardboard characters, bad dialogue, huge plot holes and general ineptness in film making this should be avoided. The film is neither funny nor scary nor sexy and so fails on it's three main selling points.

Heretic (2012/II)
Awful, 29 March 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I had never heard of this film but my brother had gave me it in a bagful of DVD's he didn't want. After watching the film it's perfectly clear why he gave it away. It would be a decent student film for a final college piece (It's not even Uni student quality), within the first five minutes there's a whole scene where the cameraman's shadow is clearly seen throughout, add to that boom's in shot, badly recorded sound in places (especially in an early pub scene) and it's very tiring to try and ignore them. The acting is uniformly dreadful throughout but that is also hampered by the excrementally bad script which has huge plot holes and so much exposition that most of the characters spend all their time explaining to each other what's going on rather than reacting to the events as would be natural. Fair play to the cast and crew for getting it made but it's still tosh of lowest order

10 out of 23 people found the following review useful:
Unconscionable bore, 6 March 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I was really looking forward to this film after hearing lot's of good things about it. I was maybe expecting too much, first off let me say that good vampire films are few and far between, Twilight - Awful, New Moon - Awful, Lost Boys - Good, Bram Stokers Dracula - Awful, Hammers Dracula - Superb and so on. I sat down in the dark and started to watch, now the first thing that hit me was, and this may seem a bit xenophobic, the clothes and surroundings, it took me a while to figure out it was set in the 1980's. I thought maybe they were just a bit backwards. No caption had come up to explain the time period and so you're left looking at a rather ugly, emaciated child wearing brown flares and a blue jumper thinking are so it's like an inbred community thing going on. But that, my friends, is where it all starts to go down hill. The first MAJOR complaint I have is the truly awful, excrementally bad dubbing. It's as though they've stolen the soundtrack to a bad spaghetti western or an even worse 1970's kung fu film. The characterisation of the dubbing is just terrible and the literal translation of some of the dialogue is even worse "the unknown man poured acid on his face making it really difficult for the police to identify him" and that's from a newsreader! the second complaint is that the film can't seem to make it's mind up on whether it want's to be a horror or a social-drama/art house film about alienation. chose one or the other because the two do not make for easy bedfellows. long scenes filled with nothing but silence and intense looks do not make for scary horror thrills nor are they incredibly entertaining. Thirdly the secondary story concerning a group of alcoholics who gather in a scruffy diner is just totally pointless, it leads nowhere and adds nothing to the story. some of the actions of these characters are totally unbelievable and ruin any sense of disbelief. and last but not least the fourth and overall most important complaint, the two leads. The two leads were so unsympathetic and uninvolving that halfway through the film what ever little interest you may have in finding out what is going in will have started to evaporate. a very dull and very confused film and not at all what i was expecting. very poor.

Watchmen (2009)
4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
not very good.., 27 July 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I still can't decide if I liked this film or not. I think I wanted to like it so much that it's clouded my judgement because I got very bored very quickly and started to fidget and had to concentrate on what was happening. First let me just say this I hadn't read the "graphic novel" or to give it it's real name the "comic". So I wasn't versed in the mythology in which it was set, but that was very nicely summed up in the first 15 or so minutes of the film. Secondly this was quite possibly one of the dullest superhero films ever, probably on a par with Hulk. Third major point with the exception of Dr. Manhattan not a single one of them possesses a single superpower, unless you count Rorschachs mask (which can change its image like the test its named after which in itself is about as useful as turning into an orange). They're all retired by an act of government and the world is on the brink of war, so they decide to try and stop it, in the meantime someone is trying to kill them all and is hunting them down, so far so who gives a frig? The characters are so underdeveloped and two dimensional that you end up not caring what happens. Rorschachs voice acts as narrator and my god is it annoying, he's gone for the "batman angry voice at all times because if i speak gruffly then everyone will fear me" thing, can someone just give the man a strepsil or some sort of lozenge? The film takes an absolute age to get going and then speeds along at a snails pace, occasionally livening things up with a fight sequence but that's it. The ending, without giving it away, is absolutely pathetic. Turns out there's a traitor in their midst and he's brought about the end of the world in order to save mankind. Eh? Did I see that right? you may be asking. the answer is yes you did and I had trouble when i saw it in the film. It was this at this point I realised I had sadly wasted 2 and a half hours watching this. Would I watch it again? probably yes. would I recommend someone else to watch it? no.

Day of the Dead (2008) (V)
8 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
shares nothing but the title with the original, 23 July 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Dear God what the hell were they thinking? Let's take the final instalment of a trilogy, the first two parts of the trilogy have already been re-made successfully by keeping very close to the originals, and give it a completely different story! Instead of a small unit of military men and scientists trapped in an underground bunker occasionally testing on zombies we have a small town turning into zombies by some weird virus. However as bizarre as the dead coming back to life is it's nothing compared to the dead climbing on ceilings upside down and running about and leaping 20-30 feet in a single bound all done with the brilliance of a "my first cgi kit" seriously the cgi in this film is awful. If you can't do it well then don't do it! the gore is very poor indeed and the casting is incredibly poor with Danny Cannon stopping just short of saying fo'shizzle at the end of every sentence because he's a bad ass gangsta pimp army man. this is nothing short of an abortion of a film and should be ignored by all fans of the genre.

5 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
Very Poor, 15 July 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Having read all the reviews about the "Worlds most violent film" I thought I'd give it a watch. Now I'm not much of a gorehound these days but when I was younger I would actively seek out banned films etc. Having done a bit of research into both the film and the actual Unit 731 I knew I was in for an unpleasant experience, however nothing could prepare me for the mind-numbing dullness of possibly THE worst art-house piece of exploitation I was about to endure. The film was almost all in black and white, fine I have no problem with that but after the first 15 or so minutes it starts to look very tacky. The fake film scratches are repeated ad nauseum over four hours with no variations. The music is absolutely horrendous, mere words cannot describe how awful it is, at some points you'd gladly swap places with the people being tortured in the film as their ordeal would be a lot less painful! It's sound like Kraftwerk playing music composed by Ed Gein. Just awful repetitive beeps and electronic noises for four hours. The film itself is very badly made with what appears to be the same five or six people being used over and over and over again. By their very nature the experiments are horrific but are filmed in such an arty style and with such inept actors (they show very little or no emotion as they are being tortured to death)and in almost total silence apart from the music that you couldn't care less what was happening. A terrible voice over attempts to link each experiment but it, like the rest of the film, is incredibly dull and void of emotion. Some of the effects were very ropey indeed and with a more prudent editor he could've hidden a multitude of sins. Overall this film is far too long, far too arty and far too dull, a total missed opportunity to tell the world of what happened as many will be put off by the ridiculous style with which it is filmed.

9 out of 17 people found the following review useful:
Rubbish, 19 May 2009

I had high hopes for this film but was bitterly bitterly disappointed. A quick word to Tim Burton just because everything is a shade of grey does not make it atmospheric, it's lazy film making. It shows you couldn't be bothered to express it in other ways. The film should've been great but thanks to one miserable dirge after another and pretty much nothing happening for forty odd minutes I was wishing I could get in the film so he could slit my throat! I only watched the film last night and can't remember a single song, despite the fact they are almost always singing. Johnny Depp gives his jack sparrow act another dust off, the only difference being the wig and make up, seriously the voice and accent is exactly the same. the set pieces are all so bland and the characters are never fully developed that it is hard to care what happens at all. a very very poor film.

Twilight (2008/I)
13 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
Awful, 9 April 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Never before have I been tempted to rip off my face and throw it at the TV screen just so I didn't have to watch anymore. Not only was this THE worst Vampire film I have ever seen, but it was also one of the worst films ever. It is quite clearly Vampires for Disney, or rather Vampires for barely pubescent girls. I am actually getting really angry just writing this, for a start forget all the well known Vampire folklore, that goes right out the window. They can walk about in sunlight, crucifixes do nothing, they don't have fangs and they never sleep. They can however run very quickly and also fly without wings. If all that doesn't put you off they don't even kill humans, they just ponce about looking like a load of pasty-faced EMO's (another group the film is clearly aimed at) keeping themselves to themselves. and that is it. for the first hour and a half! then some proper Vampires turn up and they run away, then fight, then run some more, then fight the end. The love story is absolutely pathetic, she's new in town sits next to him in class he seethes, he walks out. she doesn't see him for three weeks, he apologises, saves her from a crash and wham bam they're in love? It's mental. I don't care how hormonal she is. The way she figures out he's a Vampire is so laughable I suggest you watch it on you tube, obviously don't watch the whole film or you may end up dead from boredom, just that scene. Please please please don't watch this awful abomination of a film. Watch The Lost Boys instead.

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Exceptionally Poor, 15 December 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I was looking forward to this programme as I had missed it first time around. However nothing could prepare me for the dullest two hours of my life. This "parody" was nothing short of a direct copy. if i had taped the x factor then it would have been more entertaining and just for the record i hate all reality shows. The "jokes" and i use the term lightly were unfunny and predictable, the rejects start was terrible as indeed was the rest of the show. The usual parade of freaks were brought out R wayne? I'm sorry but I'm from Middlesbrough bout 30 miles south from where he was supposed to be from and no-one talks like that up north! Bolton maybe, but not the north east. None of the characters were appealing and it was one of THE worst shows I had seen for a long long time. It seems that the real genius behind Phoenix Nights were Sparkey and Fitzmaurice because everything Peter Kay has done since has been awful!

14 out of 27 people found the following review useful:
Massively overrated, 7 October 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Forget all the hype of it being the best film ever and it being the best film of 2008 and Heath Ledger being fantastic. None of these things are true. Yes the film is good, bordering on very good. But that's it, no way is it as great as everyone is making out. Let's start at the beginning the story, the story is just not involving enough, there's a power struggle between gangsters and Batman/the police, the Joker offers to kill Batman in exchange for half the gangsters money. The end. That's it? that's the whole story? Yeah, OK we have the relationship angle with Rachel and Harvey and Bruce but seriously what a ridiculously dull storyline. The action is good without ever being exciting or involving, personally I didn't care how many anonymous henchmen Batman fought with or how many faceless extras were put in danger by the Joker. This film needed a major face off between the two and that just didn't happen. As for Heath Ledger's performance, the characters name is called the Joker, clue is in the title, he just wasn't funny. I can't remember a single wisecrack in the whole film. Joe Pesci in Goodfellas is the perfect template of how to play the Joker - likable, hilarious with a serious threat of explosive violence. Heath just wandered about looking like a mad goth grumbling in a Richard Nixon voice. As for Harvey two face what really was the point in introducing him right at the very end of the film? a total waste of a character. Overall I feel slightly cheated by this film. It's not the fantastic movie I was expecting, it's an above average sequel. Nor is it up there with THE great superhero films Superman - The Movie and Superman 2, Spiderman and Spiderman 2. These are great superhero films, these set the benchmark way above whatever this can reach. An enjoyable film but not worthy of it's overblown status.

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