Reviews written by registered user

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

Avatar (2009)
4 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Billions of dollars wasted that could have been spent on shoes. Or orphans., 19 January 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Imagine a man so caught up in the virtual reality world of the online game "World of Warcraft", that he neglects his real life, instead preferring to absorb all his time and energies in his online avatar. Imagine that he has a very sad life and this is all he has. The game becomes his life. He starts to believe he is living in the game, and becomes far too attached to it. This can only end badly, right? Wrong. This film will lead you to believe that in the end you CAN be a part of this virtual reality. This film is grossly misleading. It is about the above, but prances around in pretty colours so that it looks otherwise. Mixed in with this and the deus ex machina ending, is a large portion of the Disney film "Pocahontas".

The amount of hype surrounding this film was ridiculous and, in my eyes, made it even more unlikeable. James Cameron's head is clearly so far up his own backside, he can't see what is good and what is nonsense anymore (I say anymore, but Titanic was abysmal as well). Who is making these films!? WHO?? Apparently Hollywood is an incestuous pit where people do whatever for the sake of favours and what not. This film is an embarrassment. Go home James Cameron, go home.

22 out of 94 people found the following review useful:
No., 19 January 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This film deserves something like a 7 or an 8, but I have been forced to score it drastically in some attempt to right the terrible injustice that has been done.

WHO is voting this film so highly? It is a nice film. A NICE film. IT IS NOT THE BEST FILM OF ALL TIME!!!!!!!!!!! I can only assume it has been voted as such because people liked the "shocking" ending and the happiness brought to them by Morgan Freeman's voice caressing their ears.

There is also a seriously unpleasant rape scene in there, none of the characters do very much, and there is a particularly depressing suicide scene. How any of this makes for 9.3/10, I have no idea. Can people stop giving films ridiculous ratings, so that people like me have to counterbalance those (undeserved) ratings with mean ones? Please? Just say no.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
How is this not the top film on IMDb's 250 top films list?, 19 January 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is the highest grossing film ever made, adjusted for inflation. Enough said. It is an epic film, starring probably the most attractive woman to ever draw breath (Vivien Leigh), and Clark Gable, who is known for being the manliest man to ever grace the silver screen.

It is outrageous that this film doesn't have a 10/10 score. This is everything a film is supposed to be - amusing, sad, shocking, thought-provoking and filled with pretty costumes! Sure, it's around 4 hours long. Sure, her obsession with Ashley seems slightly bizarre and is actually quite irritating. Sure, at times it makes slavery look like it wasn't "that bad". But you know what? Who gives a damn? I don't! And neither does Rhett Butler! Anyone who is rating this film poorly needs to take a long hard look in the mirror. I am assuming these are the same people who refuse to watch a film with subtitles (so, mostly Americans then) or think that "American Pie" is a cultural masterpiece.

Basically, this is the film equivalent of rolling around for hours in a pool of moist sponge cake.

2 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
What a film!, 19 January 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I don't like writing positive reviews - it is a tedious task and usually everyone else has already pointed out what you think. However, I saw that this masterpiece only has 8.7/10 on IMDb and this needs to be fixed. How is it possible that this film has less than the pleasant but not exceptional "Shawshank Redemption", and the stifling bore that is "Godfather" (any 3 of its should-have-been-aborted parts)!? Quentin Tarantino comes across as an absolute idiot (I tried to put another word here, but IMDb did not allow it..) so it pains me to say this, but it cannot be denied that he is one of the most talented writers/directors of all time. He just is. The film was exceptional - from the moment it started it was beautifully shot, comical, vengeful, well-written, fast-paced and full of tension at the appropriate times. I normally can't stand violent films, but this is so amazing that the horrific, gratuitous violence spouting out at seemingly 30 second intervals is a joy instead of unpleasant.

The acting, oh the acting! Christopher Waltz is an incredibly talented man, as is Leonard DiCaprio (who is dashingly handsome, even playing a villain)and of course the legend that is Samuel L. Jackson - I was very impressed with Jamie Foxx too. However, the acting would be nothing without the superb characters these men were given to play.

I can't say enough good things about this film (clearly). It is refreshing to see a film on a delicate topic such as slavery, but one handled with a mixture of emotions and not the usual "it's awful, it's awful, white guilt, white guilt" bit. More please.

Dreamgirls (2006)
0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Cringeworthy b*llocks, 9 January 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Is this film for real? I only watched thirty minutes, because that's how long it took for me to realise it isn't a parody. I'm serious.

Beyonce - YOU CAN'T ACT!!! STOP TRYING!!! GO AWAY!!! The plot of the film is this - white people are bad. White people are very bad and should feel very guilty, because they are thieves and evil and liars.

Also, Beyonce - YOUR ACTING WAS AWFUL. ALL OF IT. I COULD SEE IN YOUR HEAD THE CLOGS TURNING AND YOU THINKING "I WILL MAKE A SWEET FACE NOW". GO AWAY!!! There is singing in this film, and sweet baby Jesu I wish there wasn't. Although it breaks up the dialogue, which I suppose is something.

I have nothing else to say, I am too traumatised. So very very traumatised. I actually watched this film months ago, but it has taken this long for me to work up the courage necessary to relive it in my mind and write this review.


1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
A film about several truly awful people, 9 January 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

There is not enough time in the world to explain everything that is wrong with this film, so I will make a concise list in an attempt to warn people off: 1) Sarah Jessica Parker and the ginger one are too old, too ugly and in too high a definition to watch for this extended period of time.

2) The clothes are ridiculous. They are circus costumes, reminding us of the old adage "money can't buy style" - they might be designer, but they are hideous. And too young for the characters.

3) This film is about four females, so vapid and consumerism-driven that one of them would forgo a beautiful apartment based on a small closet.

4) According to this film, leaving someone at the alter is much worse than infidelity. The ginger's husband cheats on her. Even considering the fact she is grotesque and an unimaginably horrible person/wife, this is still ADULTERY. They are married for Christ's sake! And she goes back to him in the end because clearly, "it isn't that bad". Meanwhile, a man gets scared and has a poor lapse of judgement regarding his marriage (because his fiancée has sandbagged him at every turn, creating their wedding into something he is afraid of, despite him asking her not to have over 200 guests etc etc) and then changes his mind, but this is THE WORST THING ANYONE HAS EVER DONE.

5) They have too much money. All of them. It isn't believable that a lawyer who is married to a bartender can suddenly quit her job without another one lined up, especially when she is obviously spending all her income on designer goods.

6) There is a token Chinese adopted child. Because, as we know, adopting foreign children is fashionable.

7) There is the very unnecessary, very untalented token black woman - Jennifer Hudson - spouting out drivel, with her ear-attacking songs accompanying the film.

8) The women have all slept with over 40 men. They should be social pariahs - no one would actually want to marry someone that disgusting.

9) Steve (the adulterous husband) is literally so spineless I felt sick.

10) None of them died.

11) This film is damaging to society in many ways. Not only does it encourage promiscuity, it encourages women to disregard the male population as men who are only there to pay for things or have sex with. It also encourages them to attempt to act like the men in society, and completely emasculate these men. How women find this sort of thing liberating, I doubt I will ever understand.

4 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
Out of patience..., 8 January 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I have thought about this for a number of minutes, twisting and turning in my mind to try to understand how this lifeless, pitying bore of a film won SEVEN Oscars. Here is a list of possible reasons I could come up with: - There were literally no other films made in 1985. - A cast member slept with someone on the awards committee and then blackmailed them with irrefutable evidence. - Large sums of money changed hands. - People will literally vote for anything that has Meryl Streep in it. - No one had time to see it, but listened to the one person who did see it, who gave it rave reviews but actually had an IQ of well below 60.

This film probably doesn't deserve a 1, it probably deserves a 2 or something equally generous, because there are cows in the film and they make a decent performance (which can't be said for any of the people in the film) - however, it is necessary to rate it as such in an attempt to drag the score down to where it belongs.

The whole film is dull. The colours are dull. The people are dull. I could barely understand what anyone was saying, a fact I am quite frankly grateful for after suffering through Meryl Streep's best "old woman" voice at the beginning, and then hearing such gems as "I'll mate for life. One day at a time."

How this film is supposed to be an epic romance I will never know. The most romantic thing I saw in the whole film was her black slave refilling her vase with flowers in her African home, while she was in Denmark recovering from the syphilis her husband kindly gave to her. Don't worry though, she only married him for his title so she wasn't too cut up about it.

Basically, I have had more eventful afternoons staring at my washing machine than this film - at least my washing machine provides a myriad of colour and doesn't come with an embarrassing faux-danish accent and less sexual chemistry than a pad of frozen butter on a soggy carpet. Just don't bother.

4 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
"Three hookers and their mum", 20 December 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

What a load of feminist twaddle! I am completely flabbergasted as to why this show is popular. It is essentially four women (two who are attractive, two who look like animals) sleeping their way through every man in New York, but not thinking they are sluts and instead blaming everything on the men. Even the "least slutty" one is still a slut. In one episode, not having sex on the first date is seen as a "challenge".

It is 2012. I am really bored of the "men are wrong, let's blame everything on the men." It is boring, inaccurate and has no place influencing others on a TV show. The only bearable character is Samantha, who realises she is trying to act like a man and have sex like a man but does not want children or marriage, and embraces it - at least that is honest. Also, for someone who spends so much money on fashion, the lead character (the one who is famous for looking like a foot/horse) dresses like some kind of homeless, blind transvestite. I would rather eat my own left arm than let any children of mine watch this show, except maybe as a lesson into "why feminists are so damaging to society". Surprise surprise that one of them becomes accidentally pregnant by the way - how responsible is that (and predictable). The fact that any of these characters become mothers is quite frankly disgusting.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Selfish people doing selfish things...and Soames is the bad guy!?, 5 December 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The reason I am giving this is 8/10 is basically for Damian Lewis, who is incredible in his role as Soames.

From the offset, we see Young Joylon selfishly abandon his wife and daughter in favour of the governess, who he loves. He is painted some kind of victim as his family turn against him for his selfish actions, and we are supposed to feel sorry for him.

Then we have Soames, who meets and ADORES Irene (the incredibly mis-cast Gina Mckee who is too old, not attractive enough and too cold), who marries him essentially for his money and then makes NO EFFORT WHATSOEVER within their marriage. THEN, she starts a very blatant affair with her BEST FRIEND's fiancé. She is extremely selfish and unpleasant,but Soames again is the villain because he gets drunk one night and forces himself on her in desperation.

The rest of the series is basically "poor Irene and evil Soames and poor Young Joylon...and let's make Irene and young Joylon happy but leave Soames unhappy." Other than that major problem, there are some excellent characters.

Skyfall (2012)
14 out of 30 people found the following review useful:
I was willing to overlook Quantum of Solace, but this has gone too far..., 28 October 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is a cracking action film. It is not, however, what I would consider to be a Bond film. If anyone has watched any of the older Bond films (ignoring the messes that were Pierce Brosnan's), then they can see easily what James Bond is about. James Bond is about a suave man's man who speaks in sexual innuendo, beds numerous women, kills frequently and efficiently and with the aid of super-cool gadgets and a top of the range Aston Martin. He is not an emotional man. He is the epitome of cool.

Skyfall is about none of the above. Skyfall is first and foremost about product placement. When one wades through all the product placement, one can view the plot, which goes something like this (please note that due to the overwhelming and unavoidable evidence to suggest that this is not a James Bond film, I will now be referring to the protagonist - formerly known as James Bond - as Daniel Craig) :

A very old-for-his-age Daniel Craig is fighting on the roof of a train and his colleague needs to take a shot at the man he is fighting with. He can HEAR this, we later find out. He can hear M saying "take the shot" despite Bond being in the way. At NO POINT does Bond try and get out of the way so she can make a shot. She shoots and Bond gets shot. The rest of the film is a mix between The Dark Knight Rises (an old, injured hero trying to make himself strong again), Law Abiding Citizen (a villain who WANTS to be caught for his "master plan") and Home Alone (the "goodies" boobytrap a house with objects they find lying around to defend against the "baddies"). Most of the film focuses around Judi Dench, in some kind of bizarre tribute. Javier Bardem's character, whilst amazing, smacks somewhat of the Joker in the Dark Knight and his relationship with M was creepy to the point of distasteful.

Let's have a look at the Craig girls. Naomie Harris and her quite frankly appalling banter with Bond (another thing - Craig is supposed to be good at flirting) leaves her looking like a sarcastic t4 presenter. Berenice is electric for all of the 5 minutes she is in the film, before she is killed.

Other issues with the film: Daniel Craig is unshaven for a quarter of the film. No, just no. Daniel Craig CRIES. Way too much of the film was insulting Great Britain and MI6. Find out too much of Craig's family history.

Don't get me wrong - if you completely ignore that this is supposed to be a Bond film, it is a very enjoyable action film. Some of the sequences are breathtaking, the chases are brilliant and the plot is (albeit plagarised) jolly good fun. There is some decent humour in there too. I just can't help but feel that somewhere between the point where Sam Mendes was overseeing the script-writing, and the point where he had his head up Judi Dench's backside, SOMEONE, ANYONE might have said "um...just a few things about this..." or at the very least you'd think he might have watched a few Bond films himself and not have to be told. Because, from this utterly misguided attempt, I can see that he has never ever watched a Bond film that did not include craggy Craig.

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