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

2 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Western Democracy and Free Markets at work., 25 June 2007

There are many negative comments about the facts of this film. I watched it and I decided that what has transpired in Sierra Leone is almost typical the every wealthy former Colony.

The price of Independence for many countries in what we mockingly call "The Third World" has been corruption and tyranny. These nations may have their Independence, but the Colonial power's organisations have retained all of the rights to the most valuable property which they initially stole from the people.

Ahmad Tejan Kabbah's position of power reminds me somewhat of General Pinoche in Chile, The Shah in Iran, Marcos in the Phillipines and Saddam Hussein as leaders kept in power to serve foreign business interests.

The History of the last 200 years has told us that when poverty reaches a certain level, worker's Revolutions occur using Marxist ideologies to fuel the uprising. In the 80's these movements, such as the Sardinistas, where labelled as Communists and systematically reviled and suppressed by the Free Market Economies. Tyrants where kept in power to protect foreign businesses from Nationalisation.

Now in the face of uprising, all that can be agreed on is to hold Elections. If the Revolutionary party wins the election, the International Community will simply not recognise the government and label them a "Terrorist Organisation" (eg Hamas).

Free elections are pointless exercises.

I point to the 1953 Iranian coup d'état to illustrate my point. Here, a Democratically Elected government was removed from power by a US/UK backed coup when they revealed plans to nationalise the Iranian Oil Company (Better known as BP). The International Community then endorsed a Dictatorship which was in turn crushed in 1979 by a Shia Muslim Revolution.

This is a very familiar old story told in Africa instead of South America or The Middle East.

Threads (1984) (TV)
0 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Still an unsettling watch., 30 October 2003

Just watched the first screening of this TV Film since 1985 on Digital Channel BBC4.

My parents would not let me watch "Threads" when it was first aired in 1984 as I was only nine years old. At the time, I was resigned to the fact that Nuclear War was innevitable. This was a fear passed on by my parents and many other adults I knew. People lived in fear of The Bomb, even kids in the school playground where aware of it and afraid of it.

Nearly 20 years later, my opinion has reversed. I see Nuclear arms as mankind's greatest scientific achievement and the single reason that we have never seen a Third World War. No-one would ever risk the "Worst case scenario" as featured in "Threads".

Basically, we witness the strife of two families and one administration in the great city of Sheffield attempt to survive and bounce back from a massive Nuclear Strike that has completely destroyed all of Great Britain's transport and amenity (gas, electricity, water and food) infastructure. All contingency plans fail, all relief efforts fail to appear as it appears that the entire civilised world has been effected and the Earth's ecology is irreversibly damaged.

"Threads" does more than outline the effects of a Nuclear attack and the consequential ecological disaster. It looks at possible effects on society as the human race descends into anarchy and life becomes a living hell of survival of the fittest. The only method of control is in the hands of a provisional government who are forced to use deadly force to control food supply for the good of all. Starving masses are summarily executed for looting food caches and forredging for food by the well fed militia.

"Threads" succeeds in delivering it's stark tale by telling a very human story. It follows the fate of two families linked together by a young couple who are expecting a baby at the time of the attack. The central character, Ruth, carries and delivers her baby (who is mentally handicapped, as many younger children are in "Threads" due to radiation poisoning). The images of Ruth's daughter some 17 years after the attack with Britain "bombed back to the stone-age" are harrowing as the unfortunate youth gives birth to a still-born child.

This movie is harrowing and caused a major storm back in the mid-eighties. It really brings home the fear that was generated by insurgence of Communism and the subsequent "Cold War".

Remeniscent in subject matter to such films as "Soylent Green" in it's de-humanising of society induced by desperate times demanding desperate measures.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Did anyone ever doubt the genius of Tarantino?, 12 October 2003

Quentin's newest is a joy to behold.

I have to say that this is one of the most enjoyable movies I have ever seen. Tarantino has produced a great, great movie and his fingerprints are all over it.

I was sold on this movie as soon as I read the "Old Klingon Proverb" in the first frame "Revenge is a dish that is best served cold". Never has a truer thing been said when in relation to this movie.

This is the definately the bloodiest film ever, including the blood geysers in The Evil Dead movies. Truly, I have never seen so much blood on the screen. Parents are going to have a field day with this.

The comedy is SO dark it's positively bleak. The hospital scene with Buck is one of the most shocking scenes I have ever witnessed. I mean, the dialogue between Buck and his customer was the crudest thing I have ever heard from a human being's mouth and the whole Vaseline thing killed me let alone Bill.

After seeing this, I think QT made the right decision in cutting this movie in half as the movie is so rich it needs to be appreciated in smaller slices.

Thank you Quentin. Thank you for Kill Bill!

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
A true miscarriage of justice, 28 July 2003

In the name of the father is an excellent film. It tells the true story of Gerry and Guiseppe Conlon who where jailed as members of the so called "Guilford Four" who allegedly where guilty of bombing packed public houses back in the 70's.

Britain in the mid 70's was falling victim to many such bombings orchestrated by the Provisional IRA and the English Police where desperate for a result.

Then along come Gerry Conlon and his friend Paul Hill, two Irish teenagers who have left Belfast for London after being banished by the local IRA for theiving. The IRA, especially in Belfast, look down upon criminal behaviour in their neighbourhoods as it brings unwanted police attention. These guys where chancers and thieves, NOT terrorists.

The Police arrest them, again in the act of burgalry and charge them with the said act of terrorism even though they have a concrete aliby for their location at the time of the bombing. They are beaten and threatened until they sign blank confessions.

Gerry's father, Guiseppe, made his way to London to help his son. On his arrival he is arrested by the Police as the Terrorist mastermind behind the bombings. His poor relatives, who lived in London who he was staying with, where all arrested as the police established the small house as a "bomb factory".

The Police manufactured the charges and then got greedy. The family in the so called "bomb factory" ALL went to prison for 12 years, even the children went into young offenders prisons as terrorists. Gerry, Guiseppe, Paul Hill and a young girl they had met on the day in question, all went to prison as Terrorists for 30 years terms.

About 15 years later, Guiseppe became terminally ill and the Conlon's where given permission to secure a lawyer (the first REAL legal representation they received under anti-terrorism laws). Gerry and Guiseppe convince her (played brilliantly by Emma Thompson) of their innocence.

Then, as if by a miracle, she is issued a warrant to see the files on Guiseppe's case in order to appeal for his release for ill health. The warrant reads - G. Conlon. The clerk at the records office asks if she wishes to see Gerry's or Guiseppe's file. Seizing her chance she takes Gerry's file.

In this file, she finds a statement confirming Gerry's aliby with a hand written note attached signed by the Police officer in charge of the case stating that this document was "Not to be shown to the defence".

The case went back to court and all parties where freed because the case was thrown out in MINUTES. The Police officer who framed all involved retired from the service on health grounds and was never brought to justice.

This film damns the British Justice system in a way seldom seen before on film. It does not in any way glamourise the IRA or is it "out to get" the British Government or the Crown Prosecution Service. It simply tells the story of people who where in the wrong place at the wrong time. These people had their lives destroyed just so the police could say that they had caught the Guilford bombers - who where never found.

Serious stuff!

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Bad enough to be funny., 26 July 2003

I saw this poor excuse for a movie on BBC1 while on Holiday in Tenerife. I'd had a few drinks and started watching this movie. After getting over the initial rank bad acting and cheesy dialogue, I started to enjoy it.

The villain, Durant, played by Larry Drake who played the retarted guy in L.A. Law is very funny indeed. On breaking a mad scientist out of prison he asks "Do you know why I busted you out?". The reply is class "You busted me out because I'm one of two people alive who is capable of building a nuclear bomb in a shed, from household items".

The mad scientist goes on to invent a ray-gun which they are hoping to sell to the Police. After an effective demonstration, the chief of police asks the Mad scientist how long it would take to provide 300 of these ray guns. The Scientist replies that he can have them delivered "by the end of the week". He's working in A SHED.

Too funny. Must be viewed as a comedy, funnier than anything Mike Myers has ever done.


Something of a triumph., 8 July 2003

I feared the worst when I read that this movie was going to be made. Without Jim Cameron I thought it was in danger of becoming another Robocop 2.

I have to admit, having just watched it, I kinda liked it. Arnold Schwarzenegger although older excels in the role of The Terminator, it seems like a silly thing to say, but he IS the Terminator and reprises the role as well as anyone could have hoped.

The key thing was always going to be the story in making another Terminator movie. In this case, I think it really works and remains true to it's origins.

It's a great action blockbuster and I'm sure it's gonna make loadsa money.

Hope Jim Cameron liked it!

Rollerball (2002)
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Completely misses the point of the original movie (spoilers), 7 July 2003

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear...........

This movie has to be seen as one of the worst remakes ever. The cental character, Jonathan Cross is a real joke compared to the original Jonathan.E, played by James Caan.

Caan's Jonathan E was driven to play the game and the story centres on his struggle to continue playing the game when his paymasters want him to quit. He is potentially bigger than the game which was meant to be a method of control. No-one was supposed to ever become "good" at Rollerball as it was designed to outline the futility of individual effort.

Klein's Jonathan Cross is trying everything he can to leave the game and is desperate to do so. He is blackmailed into playing by the TV bosses who are desperate to get the game on American cable TV (gimme a break!).

Rollerball is a story that carries the message that the human spirit cannot be broken and that no matter how difficult the challenge, the human spirit will prevail.

This load of garbage loses these key elements which made the 1975 movie an extremely valid film. It was not a glamourisation of violence like the new movie. The ending is truly stupid in the new movie and is the final nail in it's coffin. In the original, Jonathan E claims victory and rolls around the arena with his name echoing around the arena. He became what the bosses where afraid he would become, a hero. In the new movie Jonathan Cross kills the network bosses and frees himself from the game.

I'd advise anyone thinking of renting this film to watch the original and not to waste their time on this pile of excrement.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Strange ending with Heston., 15 May 2003

After just watching BFC, I feel that although it's a very good documentary, the interview with Charlton Heston doesn't really work. Heston is an icon and one of the World's most famous people who was good enough to give Moore his time. I felt that Moore just badgered him on what is a subject he was never going to comment on. This opportunity to brace Heston on gun control was a wasted by Moore who appeared too in awe of Heston and in the end just showed him an almost infantile lack of respect.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Snake is king., 7 April 2003

I have re-watched this recently. Considering it doesn't look like it had a budget It is a very entertaining 90 mins. Credit must go to the once talented John Carpenter for not only writing and directing this movie, it's "home made" score by Carpenter provides an excellent haunting theme tune.

Russell's bad to the bone anti-hero Snake Plisskin is very cool and very tough. In fact Russell's Snake was surely the reason that the awful sequel "Escape from LA" was produced.

Definately worth a watch.

The Devils (1971)
2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Make up your own mind, 7 April 2003

The Devils is famous as a banned or heavily cut film from the seventies. Having seen it recently, it is an excellent film. It's message of the ultimate corruption of the Church during the 18th century in europe is a real eye opener. The use of Religion to exercise control and the wielding of the word of God for political gain is a message which shouldn't be taken lightly.

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