Reviews written by registered user

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

11 out of 21 people found the following review useful:
OTT isn't scary., 19 June 2016

I seriously don't get the hype around The Conjuring & Insidious. They go so over the top I can't take them seriously. What ever happened to a slow burn or subtlety in horror? Don't get me wrong, I love high concept horror or a good cheese fest too. Evil Dead, Poltergeist, Hellraiser... they're not exactly documentary level BUT Conjuring sets itself up as some kind of 'realistic' horror. Constantly reminding us 'Based on a true story' well then give me a little credibility. 'The Amityville Horror' or 'The Haunted' have a foot in reality that revvs up near the end to good effect. This film lets go of reality from the beginning and personally no amount of loud jump scares can make up for a complete lack of atmosphere.

They even cram in things that didn't even happen in the 'real' story. A freaking ghost nun demon? Or how about a scene were a dog turns into an 8 foot tall crooked man? A scene so far out the box even a Nightmare on Elm Street sequel looks low key by comparison.

The actors playing the mother Peggy and the oldest daughter put on the worst 'cockney' accents I've heard since my high school presentation of Oliver Twist.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Prince of Cheese, 11 June 2016

For some reason I've never watched this film. I guess I wasn't really a Kevin Costner fan as a kid, who is?, and I even think back then I found an American Robin Hood stupid.

Alas however with an interest in Historical Adventure I decided to get round to this. What the actual hell 1991? This was your second highest grossing film?

I was expecting a Hollywood movie, no doubt. I know that entails a certain amount of Americanization and commercialization. It happens in Braveheart for example but they still have a foot in some kind of reality even if they paint characters with broad strokes.

But this? Everyone who isn't good is a sniveling pantomime villain, Alan Rickman is like a cinematic version of Blackadder. He is raised by a devil worshiping witch... WHAT THE FLUFF? Complete with a children's TV dungeon set that has dry ice and green lights. Why stop there guys why not just give him a dragon too?

The main problem aside from the casting of Robin Hood is this is neither fish nor fowl. If they had intended to make a swash buckling adventure movie, something like Zorro, maybe some of this cheese would be over looked but every so often they try and make this some profound historical epic with Kevin spewing out some half assed noble words.

Honestly the one with the cartoon fox was more believable.

9 out of 20 people found the following review useful:
Groovy!, 1 November 2015

(Pilot) 'Ash Vs The Evil Dead' gave me exactly what I was wanting. Ash is back and sleazier than ever. the show picks up 30 years after the previous movies where we find an even more pig headed and blow heart Bruce Campbell. The humour and horror are a nice mix between Evil Dead 2 & Army of Darkness (Which leads it to be either too funny or too serious to some 'fans'). For continuity that I hear so many complain about... what continuity? Each film partially retconned the previous and changed up the genre. The only consistent thing about Evil Dead is its inconsistency.

On to episode 2 baby!

100 out of 200 people found the following review useful:
Terminated..., 28 June 2015

Lets not even attempt to compare this to Cameron's originals but sadly it doesn't even have the guilty pleasure aspect of 3 or the ideas of Salvation this is just a lack luster cash grab. I can understand why Arnold would want to go back to a sure thing after his recent box office disappointments but honestly I'd have more faith in a new Conan or True Lies film than this. The action is fit for a mediocre Marvel film and really doesn't suit Terminator to be bouncing about like the Hulk. The drawn out plot which is clearly a trilogy idea that wouldn't fit one side of A4 feels like a pilot for a 90's TV show and the effects are poor. When Arnold loses his skin it's mostly CGI and he looks like Kano, no blood because you know the kids might get scared. I really hope this flops so Arnold might go to another franchise and give us something decent in his aging years. Truly disappointing.

11 out of 25 people found the following review useful:
Mission Failed!, 7 August 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I'm a huge action fan. I loved the first two films so I'm not one of these people who didn't even like the premise in the first place. Expendables 3's biggest insult is it had so much potential. When I heard Mel Gibson, Wes Snipes, Antonio Banderas and Harrison Ford added to the cast I couldn't wait. Why does it fail? Most would attack to PG-13 rating the studio opted for (To reach a wider audience AKA try and make more money) but to be honest that's not this films worst crime. In fact if they had made the film a PG-13 from the ground up, spent money on locations and spectacular set pieces, it might just have worked. No the film is clearly been conceived as an R-Rating, that's why it feels like you're watching a airplane version half the time. What really mucks the film up is it is poorly paced. This is the longest of the trilogy, a shocking 2 hours, and focuses on a bunch of no-name, no talent 'youngsters'. People came to the Expendables for one reason only to see all their favourite action heroes on the screen together not watch some female MMA star frown and mumble 'men' repeatedly in a vain attempt to be Vasquez from Aliens.

And just as it felt like it was about to re-deem itself at the final with a showdown between Stallone and Gibson, who plays his role to perfection, it flips fans another finger by giving us a fight so short you might blink and miss it. Seriously if you thought the Stallone-Van Damme fight from the 2nd film was short you ain't seen nothing yet.

I'd advise everyone to skip this one in the cinema and pray for a better cut on DVD.

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Could have been a decent Vampire film., 3 October 2012

The main problem with this film is it is a werewolf film (And a sequel). The film stars Christopher 'Dracula' Lee', who along with his band of clergy men stabs the creatures through the heart with silver stakes in Transylvania. These things scream 'Vampire' to me. Even the way the 'were-wolves' act is more akin to vampires, especially the lurid sex scenes which would have been far less embarrassing to look at if they where not covered in fur on top of that there is a strange bat monster near the end for no reason what so ever. If it had been the same cast, same basic plot, same budget and was about vampires it would have been a decent film.

The were-wolf effects are so inconsistent it's cringe worthy, ranging from actors with some cheap fangs who look like the rolled around on a barber's floor to full on gorilla costumes. Don't expect anything close to the effects from the original movie.

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Awful, 10 January 2011

To think at one time the BBC was know for it's great comedies like Fawlty Towers or Black Adder, Red Dwarf and Only Fools and Horses and countless more. But now The BBC seems to lower their bar each time with what the exhibit on BBCThree. Although to be fare we should all be aware that if a programme was any good the BBC would put it on one of their real channels. Coming of Age has managed to make Two Pints look mature, now you could say 'That's the whole point it is about young adults' well then have a look at a far more sharply written comedy on CH4 'The Inbetweeners'. This is dumb, crude humour, no wait Family Guy and the Young Ones had dumb crude humour they where still funny. What is it with this? Oh it's just not funny in the least it's like a sitcom that's been written by a 12 year old.

BBC as a license payer I expect a refund.

197 out of 349 people found the following review useful:
Stallone does it again!, 15 August 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

After nearly a decade of disappointments Stallone shocked the movie world by making a 6th emotionally charged Rocky, he then went on to please fans by taking Rambo into a visceral brutally realistic war movie, now for his hat trick Stallone gave us something old and something new 'The Expendables' the type of movie kids dreamed about the early 90's, what if this guy & that guy and him where all in a film together. A little too late? Hell no! Never has this film been more needed. In a land of watered down PG-13 wire work action movies real action fans where desperate for some real old school action. (Cobra, Commando, Delta Force, Last Boy Scout..) The great thing about this film is even if it didn't have the cast it still would be a great action movie, the fact it has such a jaw dropping cast just makes it all the better. Stallone is growing as an action director, he brought some of his tense brutal techniques from Rambo but was smart enough to go a little old school for other scenes. Their are some very kinetic action sequences but not Parkinson's suffering cameraman techniques like the Bourn films.

The main focus of the team are Stallone & Statham, they really have a good Old Dog, New Dog friendship. Lundgren (My favourite character) gets a an interesting sub plot. Unfortunately Li, Couture & Crews get pushed to the background but they do get some great scenes to shine. (Hopefully they can get some more development in the sequel.

Roberts and his Henchman Stone Cold Steve Austin shine as the brutal villains. Gary Danials however was really underused I was expecting some Bennet style lines. At least he got one of the best fights of the movies.

Of coarse the scene everyone was talking about was the Stallone, Schwarzenegger & Willis scene. Which was one of the funniest parts of the movie. Their attempt to put each other down while out manning each other worked brilliantly and Willis threatening Stallone alone is worth the ticket price.

A slight nag about the film is at the very end some CGI did crop up, in the form of fire. After all the practical stunts throughout the movie including one great Truck chase I was a little disappointed not to see a stuntman in a fire suit.

If this had just been Stallone's baby with a few unknown actors I'd give this film 8/10 BUT the fact we get to see Stallone, Statham, Li, Lundgren, Couture, Crews, Roberts, Rourke, Danials with Willis & Schwarzenegger punch, kick, stab, mouth off and blow up each other cranks it up to a 9.5/10 for me.

Bring on Expendables II

Predators (2010)
57 out of 113 people found the following review useful:
Great, Original, Instalment to the series., 8 July 2010

Finally after nearly 20 years Predator gets a sequel. It did not disappoint. It's a great original sequel and Sci-Fi/Action take on 'The Most Dangerious Game.' I liked all the characters who really worked well together. Royce did surprise me, he was a good character. Anyone who cried because he isn't built like Schwarzenegger really should try meeting actual soldiers. He looked like a fit average soldier. Dutch, Harrigan and Royce are three completely different kinds of characters and to be honest thats partly what makes the franchise interesting. Oleg Taktarov and Danny Trejo where also cool characters and Fishbourned cameo was fun, although you can tell his role was meant to be a cameo for Arnold.

The creatures worked when I was worried they would have been a bit cheesy, but the hunter aspect came into play.

I think a lot of the scenes were good just because they reminded you of the original (Which I'm not sure is that good a reason.) There are a few nods for die hard fans, especially a creature that was the original Predator design.

I can't decide whether or not I like this more than Predator 2, it doesn't surpass the original but it's head and shoulders above the two horrible AvP films (that's not hard). Now Predator is a Trilogy and honestly as Sci-fi/Action trilogies go it's probably one of the best.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
My Name Is Micheal Weston, I used to be a Spy....., 13 June 2009

I'm not big on todays drama series. Generally you're left hanging like some serial and I tend to loose interest. Lost, Prison Break, C.S.I all bore me. As does the idea of most of these programs being about solving the case or judging the case never stopping the crime from happening. Well along comes Burn Notice and blows me away. I actually only checked it out as I knew Bruce Campbell (Evil Dead Trilogy) was in it but after the first pilot I was hooked on all the characters. Imagine 007 was American and realistic with family problems, was fired and was in Miami Vice and while trying to work out who fired him had to do A-Team soldier of fortune style jobs with an Ex-Navy Seal (played brilliantly by Bruce Campbell) and an Ex-IRA (And Ex-Girlfriend) gun runner for cash, and for justice. But it's so much more than that, interesting episode stories, intriguing over all story that keeps you guessing and you never quite know whats going to happen, double crosses, mistakes, traps etc. Not only did I get myself hooked but after showing it to my friends they became fanatics. Do yourself a favor check it out now.....

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