Reviews written by registered user
JimPearson

Send an IMDb private message to this author or view their message board profile.

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

District 9 (2009)
20 out of 40 people found the following review useful:
Utterly ridiculous, 31 January 2010
1/10

I do not give out ratings of 0 lightly, but here it is - the first film I have rated for a long time which has absolutely no merit.

Inane, trivial, inconsistent, just noise, no story, no dialog, scientifically unsound. How many more do you need? Turn the volume down and you might as well have a blank screen. Turn the volume up and if you are at all sensitive to gratuitous noise to attract people's attention then you will hate it.

How anyone can write a movie about aliens which just sit around for 20 years because they are no capable of doing otherwise is beyond me. Plus, any alien species smart enough to get hear will certainly be smart enough to avoid hand-to-hand combat

Don't waste your time. There are so many more movies out there which are worth at least a 1 out of 10.

La Bohème (1986) (TV)
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Fiamma Izzo d'Amico is the star, 5 August 2007
10/10

Pavarotti is excellent, as expected (although the vision of a 300 pound, 50-year old man playing Rodolfo stretches the imagination), but the star of this opera is a young Fiamma Izzo d'Amico. It is hard for me to imagine such a fine performance from a 22-year old. The supporting cast is good but I have seen better and the sets are acceptable. It is the combination of Puccini's music and the voices of the two leads who make this such a wonderful experience.

As commented by another, this production was done in China and it is odd to see Chinese extras on the stage: there were not too many Chinese children in Paris in the 1980s. The audience clearly was not as conversant with European opera as we in the west are as shown by its mistimed applause but that was not really a distraction.

If you are not an opera buff then this is a good place to start. La Boheme is one of the most popular operas of all time and an excellent introduction. However, in that case concentrate on the music and voices - the subtitles will only make you laugh: most opera librettos lose a lot in translation.

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Very disappointing, 27 April 2007
4/10

I got the DVD from the library in the expectation of getting a good idea of how things go on in the background at a major opera production. I have to say, I was very disappointed. The subject had so much potential. The sets in a Wagnerian production must, of necessity, be elaborate and impressive and the story behind their creation and use could have been an excellent educational experience. Instead, what we get it a hodgepodge of clips of people moving around big items of scenery, vaguely help together with a commentary which failed to hold my attention. I found myself listening primarily to the background clips of music from operas. I was impressed by the sheer enormity of the effort required to put on such a production - that did come across fairly well and next time I am at the opera I am sure I will remember that part if this video - but was left feeling somewhat cheated by the lack of detailed commentary and explanation.

I, Robot (2004)
15 out of 19 people found the following review useful:
Asimov must be turning in his grave..., 14 July 2006
1/10

... or more likely, he rose from the dead and moved to another planet! This is an awful movie, bearing no resemblance to the ideas conjured up by Isaac Asimov. Granted, Will Smith is the world's worst actor and so I should not expected anything in the first place. I learned to love science fiction through wonderful stories created by one of the best SF authors of all time and I guess I was misled by the title.

If you have any love for Asimovian fiction, any respect for faithful adaptations, or any revulsion at Hollywood's gross exaggerations in this type of move, then PLEASE, do yourself a favor and avoid movie as if it were the plague - your feel better for it.

7 out of 42 people found the following review useful:
Why does a movie have to use such foul language?, 30 April 2006
1/10

I only recall one movie which had as much foul language as this: " Planes, Trains and Automobiles". I walked out of both after about twenty minutes. (I am sure there are others but I try to avoid them.) It is a sad reflection on today's society that writers and producers think that it is not possible to yet a laugh without lacing the dialog with obscenities in place of conjunctions. Maybe there was a story to this movie because others seem to like it. But if there was then I completely missed it. I think Jeff Bridges and John Goodman are good actors and this is one reason I checked out this movie but this one did nothing to enhance my opinion of them.

Be warned: unless you are immune to the type of language which is all to prevalent in movies these days, give this one a miss.

9 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Awful!, 2 February 2006
1/10

I first heard the radio broadcasts of HHGG before the book was published. I then read the book and saw the TV series. All wonderful! So it was with a certain amount of curiosity that I watched this movie. Truth is that my teenage son wanted to see it (he only read the books) and talked me into watching it with him.

Well, what a mistake. This is NOT what Douglas Adams created. Gone is the subtleties of the original version. Gone are the wonderful graphics of the TV show. Gone is Simon Jones, to be replaced by some insipid version of Arthur whose name I cannot even remember. Gone is ..... Well, you get the idea. The movies doesn't even include all the important things from the book. It gives the impression that is it more interested in created a Hollywood ripoff for the mass market.

If you have seen or read and enjoyed any earlier version, forget this one.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Worst movie I've seen all year, 31 December 2005
1/10

I am writing this as the movie is playing, because I have to do something to relieve the boredom. I promised my teenage son I would watch it with him on New Year's Ever and so I am stuck. It has to be the worst movie I have seen all year. No dialog of more than a few cliché-type phrases, but lots of flashes and bangs. Absolutely none of the aura of the infamous Orson Welles' presentation is maintained. The acting is so dry and stereotyped it took me a long time to even realize who the lead was. I have to admit that I have never read the H. G. Wells novel (although I have read several others of his) but I cannot believe this is what he had in mind. Nothing but a lame excuse for some high-tech gimmickry combined with unrealistic scenarios.

If you have a choice try an different movie; any movie. You will be rewarded for your choice.

Belonging (2004) (TV)
23 out of 24 people found the following review useful:
Another fine performance, 11 November 2005
9/10

Yet another excellent performance from Brenda Blethyn, who seems to excel in playing this type of character. But the limelight in this case has to be shared with Rosemary Harris, playing the mother-in-law, who has some excellent lines and delivers them well. Both turn in top quality performances. Many good, well known British actors in the supporting cast also add to the overall effect, including Kevin Whately, who devotees of the British TV show Inspector Morse will know as Sgt. Lewis. Here he is much and does a good job of playing the errant husband. It was an interest contrast to watching him just the previous evening in the first ever Morse, made 17 years earlier.

The plot is simple: what happens when a middle-aged husband leaves his wife for a younger woman. But the result is not exactly predictable, or perhaps to be more exact where Brenda Blethyn movies are concerned, it is predictable that things will not turn out exactly as they would in a more stereotypical tale. No spoilers given. If you enjoyed other of her movies you are certain to enjoy this one.

32 out of 36 people found the following review useful:
Very well done but to limited in scope, 21 August 2005
9/10

This documentary is an excellent introduction to those aspect of Islam which is covers. Unfortunately it is far too limited in scope but I understand why this is. With a fixed amount available for production costs the choice was either coverage in depth of a small part of the whole or a diluted coverage of a wider range of topics.

It covers, at about 50 minutes each, three aspects of the religion: Mohammed and the origins, the culture and the first Christian crusade, and the Ottoman empire. Each is given excellent coverage but it is very much a secular description rather than a religious one. For those people who have little knowledge of Islam except for exposure to the western propaganda and the news of Islamic terrorist (a minute minority of the whole) this is an eye-opening documentary. Everyone should know about the rich cultural heritage which kept alive intellectual pursuits during the dark ages of western Europe. The sections on the Ottoman empire and the fall of Constantinople is well covered and provided some information I was not familiar with.

The photography is also excellent, showing some of the wonderful architectural achievements of the early Muslims. I was not clear how much of the footage was of real life situations being recorded, how much was scripted for the production, or how much (if any) was extracted from other footage, but the blend results in a well-balance, instructive video.

Highly recommended for everyone, especially those whose exposure to Islam is only that which is portrayed by the USA media.

The Ring (2002)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
highly overrated, 15 August 2005
2/10

This movie was highly recommended and the comments here seemed to indication it was worth watching. But what a waste of time! First, it was filmed entirely in a green tint which made it very distracting and hard to watch. Second, there was very little horror: just a few gruesome scenes designed to titillate your imagination. Third, the acting was mediocre at best. The premise is, of course, complete nonsense: a good horror story should have at least a semblance of credibility. I don't believe in giving plots away in case you decide to watch it, but I recommend having another movie in reserve in case you decide this is not worth seeing to the end. I give it a 3 instead of a 1 only because there are probably some people who enjoy it, but no one in my family is included in that list.


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