Reviews written by registered user

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

Page 1 of 20:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
196 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

"Cuckoo" (2012/II)
8 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Skip to season 2, 1 March 2016

Like many I stumbled upon this by chance (it's broadcast on a minor BBC channel here) and it was literally a case of not being able to find something I wanted to watch, so "oh well, I'll give this a go".

So I went straight in at series 3 and laughed out loud more than is usual for me. In particular, Taylor Lautner plays this (for him, very strange and low-key) role to perfection. He really should do more comedy.

Fortunately all episodes from No. 1 are still available on iPlayer so I went from having watched part of series 3, to series 1. Then I became disappointed, because I just don't find Andy Samberg, or his character Cuckoo, very funny.

Jump to series 2 and things pick up again. Esther Smith's Rachel is a more pleasing character than Tamla Kari's was, and the whole cast now seem to start gelling.

Overall very funny, very well made, and remarkable that so many great comedy actors have come together to create this. It will surely develop cult status if for no other reason than Taylor Lautner demonstrates a lovable, hammy, tongue-in-cheek side to his acting.

1 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Fast and furious, 28 February 2016

As a fan of the first Mad Max, at first I thought this was going to be too sterile, relying heavily on CGI. But the effects and editing are so good, you barely notice that they are created on a computer.

The action is relentless and the cinematography quite superb, set against some stunning scenery. It's not Shakespeare but it is a classy piece of film making.

It's hard to compare Tom Hardy with a 1980s Mel Gibson and if I have any complaint to make, it's that he tries a little too hard to be Max and ends up being more like Bronson. But Theron is excellent, in a Sigourney Weaver action figure sort of way.

This is true enough to the original to be enjoyable, and it's one of the fastest-paced action thriller rides you'll ever see. The action just keeps on coming, it's relentless and very exciting.

The original Mad Max was quirky and this continues in that trend. Take it for what it is and you just can't fault it.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Absolute garbage, 24 February 2016

There is nothing to like about this film. The characters are flimsy, ambiguous and not very likable. The plot is garbage. If real soldiers act the way they do in this film, it's a wonder they don't all end up dead. Disorganised, undisciplined, no clue what they're doing.

Really, I don't know what the point of this film is. A biopic? Really? I find that hard to believe. This guy is so deeply flawed he cannot possibly be the best at anything. Or if he is the best, then the rest must be seriously bad.

Worst of all, ratings suggest that some people actually think this is a good film, a good story. As war films go, this is one of the worst I've seen.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Worthy, 22 February 2016

Some stories are bigger than the movie, and this is one of them. It would have to be a God-awful film for me to rate it less than a 10. As it happens, it's a very good film with a solid performance from Renner.

It is pretty much a one-man show. That's not to say the supporting cast aren't significant, because there are good performances from Patrick, Liotta and Garcia to name but a few. But their moments on screen are very brief, so in the end it all comes down to whether Renner can carry the movie, and I think he does - just.

His style is laid-back and that probably suits the role of Webb, who comes across as humble, quiet yet determined and forceful. It's a shame that the name of Gary Webb is not more widely known, but it's good to see the powerful medium of film being put to good use like this.

Dull, unoriginal, 22 February 2016

Nothing new here, just rehashing plots that are centuries old. That might work if the characters are interesting - or even likable. In this case the main characters and actors are fairly unlikable, and everybody just seems to be going through the motions.

Those on the periphery promise a little more entertainment but they're very much bit-part players. In the main, what we get is just dull, uninspired, uninteresting, unoriginal, mediocre quality writing and acting.

Please take my advice and don't waste precious moments of your life on mindless drivel like this.

Misunderstood, 21 February 2016

This movie just doesn't deserve the low ratings it has here.

I found this to be intelligent, witty and well made. I like the cast, I think the characters are believable, the writing and direction are slick. It's also genuinely scary at times and the production values are pretty high for something that was clearly never intended to break any box-office records.

If it has an issue, it's that it isn't clear what genre it wants to play in. For me that's not a problem, but obviously less intelligent viewers can't handle the ambiguity. Movies, like any art form, do not have to sit nicely in one category or another. Enjoy it for what it is - a professionally-made piece of cinematic entertainment.

So yes, at times it appears to be a spoof, or tongue-in-cheek, or comedic. Then it switches between horror and sci-fi. Who cares? I enjoyed it and I think the tendency to over-analyse is completely missing the point, and risks killing-off good work before it even has a chance to reach its audience.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Delightfully Irreverent, 2 October 2013

A somewhat tame, by Gervais' standards, swipe at all things religious, let down only by a weak masking plot that I guess was necessary in order not to offend the US audience. Nevertheless the parody is damning if a little naive, and the shameless and satirical product placement is amusing.

Gervais is at least playing to his strengths here and not trying to act - we all know he can't - and there are some great cameos from the likes of Hoffman and Norton. Good too to see Barry from Eastenders getting a role. However I'm puzzled by the casting of Garner who lacks charm and dare I say femininity. She makes a good superhero but not a good love interest, especially not for short fat men with snub noses.

Could have been harder hitting but credit for effort.

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Pointless and Pretentious, 30 September 2013

I really don't know what this film is supposed to be about, but whatever it is, it doesn't work. We have a weird Dutch girl about whom we know nothing, blagging her way round some American town and using people for her own gratification with no regard for anybody's feelings except her own. The film is punctuated with pointless interviews, the meaning of which is a mystery because they just show people talking about 'feelings' and other vague stuff too boring to mention.

Frankly the Alexa character is one of the most shallow and obnoxious I've seen. She is greedy and selfish and blatantly using people, yet (the actor has a writing credit, surprise surprise) she is portrayed through flattering camera and lighting work as some sort of heavenly body. It's all too twisted and pretentious, and it's impossible to sympathize with the character for any misfortune that befalls her.

This may appeal to immature arty types who spend too much time thinking and not enough doing, but it has no place in mainstream cinema.

1 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Depressing, 25 September 2013

Australia certainly has a knack for producing depressing films, and this is one of their finest efforts. If I want to be depressed I'll turn on the news. I don't see any reason to bring more sadness into the world.

Initially the story looks promising and indeed could have become moving and uplifting. However, much like the unfortunate characters portrayed, it plunges into an inescapable spiral of gloom and misfortune.

Pearce is certainly on top form here, but his character is so pathetic and easily manipulated that it is difficult not to despise those around him - basically everyone else in the movie.

Technically good films don't work unless there is an inspirational or entertaining story to tell. This one perhaps was intended to be uplifting but misses the mark by a mile. Poor effort indeed.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
And the award for worst acting goes to ..., 10 September 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Bobbi Sue Luther couldn't act her way out of a paper bag, as witnessed here in what must be one of the worst performances of all time. Add to that fact her character here is a truly horrible person who deserves to be cut up into little pieces, and we have a movie that should never have been unleashed on the unsuspecting public. Just how do these films get made? Who on earth thought that Luther was a good choice? I despair.

So we have some psychopath killing girls and he wants this one, who had escaped and sought shelter with the unfortunate Tucker and Cindy. He holds a knife to Cindy's throat and indicates he wants the girl. If I was Tucker I'd have handed her over without question and the movie could have ended with the satisfactory slashing of the horrible cow. But no, Tucker decides his wife is less important to him than this weird girl he just met. Honestly, who comes up with this drivel?

From then on everyone the despicable girl comes into contact with dies a horrible death. What is wrong with these people? Do the sensible thing and hand over the worthless criminal whore to the man with the big knife. How many good innocent people must die just so this scumbag can live? Well, just about everyone. Utterly stupid and irritating.

Page 1 of 20:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]