8 Reviews
Sort by:
Worth a watch
20 September 2012
The Bourne Legacy in no way resembles the book. That probably doesn't matter because the Bourne films and the books have been diverging for years.

Matt Damon's Jason Bourne isn't the lead. That's no spoiler..anyone who has seen posters or trailers knows that. Jeremy Renner ( Hurt Locker, the Town) is the new hero Aaron Cross. Renner is a good actor and he quickly eclipses all memories of Bourne and makes the role his own.

Rachel Weiosz is the female lead and its the first time that the hero in this series has had a female co-star who makes an impression and has a fan base of her own. Both actors are excellent. The relationship between them works on many levels and Rachel's character is an important element of the story. Bourne's female leads were either an encumberance to him to be cast aside ( Marie) or a tacked on love interest to provide a trailer moment (Stiles).

The action is handled better, not that its better staged - the action in this series has always been first rate- but now that Greengrass has gone its less frenetic in its editing so you can see what is going on.

All the cast are convincing and the good news is that a sequel has already been greenlit so we'll see these characters again.
14 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Gibson is too old for this kind of thing
1 May 2012
I have to say I've enjoyed much of Gibson's work in the past and I was interested in seeing this. I don't think his character in this is the guy he played in Payback, there are a few similarities but I don't see a reason to think that unless he was named Porter.

Anyway on to the movie itself. It's obviously not a big budget movie- compared to Gibson's older action vehicles- but its not slapdash. The opening is a little bizarre. There's not an enormous amount of action but what there is looks decent. There is one distinctive touch. If Get The Gringo had a few more set pieces like that it might have been more memorable.

The problem with the movie is its leading man. He is just too long in the tooth for this kind of thing. Back in the 70s people were questioning whether Sean Connery was too old to reprise the role of 007 at the age of 40. Nowadays relics like Stallone, Chuck Norris, Schwarzenegger,Travolta are playing tough guys well past retirement age.It is a trend that needs to stop. In Gibson's case in particular there isn't enough spray on hair in the world to make Gibson believable as an action hero. Its a little sad, like seeing an ageing prize fighter in Vegas desperately taking one more shot at glory.

I'm not saying Gibson doesn't have a future in movies but his days as an action hero are behind him.
17 out of 121 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Where did it go wrong?
1 May 2012
I saw trailers for this in the cinema and considered going to see it. Thankfully I didn't waste £8 paying for a ticket. The premise for this seemed great- OK reminiscent of True Lies- but there seemed to be potential for comedy and drama. Potential that is sadly never realised. Tom Hardy and Chris Pine are both charming leads (Pine needs to stop doing that chewing with his mouth open thing)Reese Witherspoon is possibly a little old for this kind of role- or at least this kind of role with Hardy and Pine- but she plays the role well enough. The problem is that there is no plot to speak of, very little action and precious few laughs. The film is beautifully lit but the editing is horrible. It reminds the viewer of Quantum of Solace with its action sequences that could be memorable except the viewer can't see what is happening. It doesn't look a cheap film and the cast and premise could have made for something memorable but how could the end result be so unsatisfying. Vapid, bland, predictable and empty its like overdosing on cake icing because there is no cake underneath. All the way through I couldn't help wonder how so much could have gone wrong until as the end credits rolled I saw it was directed by McG . Nothing more to be said.
111 out of 166 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Starhyke (2009– )
worst sitcom ever
2 April 2012
This series is just not funny. I bought it from ebay after seeing Claudia Christanson was in it. Loved her in Babylon Five but I can only assume she is in need of a quick pay slip if she agreed to do this.

Starhyke is a comedy without any jokes. There is no real plot beyond the basic idea, each script just feels like nobody cared. That as long as there was a long enough running time nobody involved in making this cared what anyone said or did.

claudia does her best but seems slightly bemused, jeremy bullock and the actors who played reg and vilma make more effort than this deserves but the rest of the cast do literally nothing to make this better.

FX are decent but even fan films have good x these days.
14 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I was bored
23 March 2012
This is a long movie, very heavy on dialogue but the plot is actually quite simple. The identity of the villain is pretty obvious.

I have to say that I found this film to be extremely and relentlessly boring. The story could have been told in half of the running time allocated to this film.

The less than charismatic actors don't help either. Rooney Mara is better but she has a more interesting character. Lisbeth is eccentric but still not interesting enough to sustain the film.

Daniel Craig gives a boring performance of a boring character. The number of times I checked my watch while watching this was beyond belief.

I hope the movie doesn't get sequels.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
21 junk street
17 March 2012
Warning: Spoilers
An honest review. I can't understand why there are certain people who constantly hype this movie on the IMDb and criticise other better movies. I guess they must be paid to do so. Certainly seems plausible since I've now watched this crapfest. How bad is it? Do you remember the abysmal Ben Stiller butchering of Starsky and Hutch from a while back. 21 Jump Street is worse than that. Hardly surprising given that it stars Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum. I've only seen Tatum in one movie before and he was a wooden, dull, boring plank in that. He's no better in this. As a leading man he's even more of a charisma vacuum than Chris O'Donnell.

Still at least he's better than Jonah Hill. Superbad wasn't just the title of his breakthrough movie its a description of his entire career.

He's been doing the same schtick in everything he does and if it was rubbish the first time it stinks like month old festering garbage now.

To make it clear I'm a fan of gross out stupid comedy but not when its as stupid and badly-acted as this. Don't pay to see this. The good reviews are fake. You'll thank me for the warning.
65 out of 122 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7 June 2011
I watched this show when it was first made and loved it! Having received the series on DVD as a gift I was glad to see its still hilarious.

The acting and writing are sublime and this is one of those shows where the theme always brings a smile to my face.

Jessica Walters and Jeff Tambor are the characters I remember most but every character has a story to tell and gets plenty of laughs. That is the sign of a great sitcom.

If you haven't seen this I urge you to do so. If you have be assured it stands up to another watch.

Highly recommended!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Blood + Roses (2010)
interesting but flawed
25 May 2011
I think this film is something of a mixed bag. It has a great deal of potential which it doesn't quite live up to.

The basic idea is quite interesting and different. It's an idiosyncratic take on the horror fantasy genre. The realisation doesn't quite live up to the idea.

At first I thought the pacing was too slow initially. I should make clear that I'm not a gorehound or a viewer who wants frenetic shock tactics. I welcome the slower more leisurely build up.

The problem is not with the pacing- for me at least- many horror fans will probably find it slow. The problem is not with the script- although some of the dialogue is a little awkward.

The problem is certainly not with the technical aspects. Simon Aitken and his crew seem to know what they want and are capable of achieving that result.

The thing that takes this movie from a solid seven to a below average four is the actors. They're just not good enough. Most of them seem to be reciting their lines from a card. None of them have the charisma to be leads in a feature film.

It's frustrating that what could have been a nice little debut film is rendered unsatisfying by poor performances that seem more like dictating a letter than playing a role.

Ultimately I think Simon Aitken has a future in this industry and I wish him well with it. I hope to see more of his individualistic and imaginative vision.He just needs to take a little more care with casting in the future.
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this