Aidy Reviews

Bad Guys (2020)

Slow and unengaging

[3/10 · 19 May 2020]

In terms of events this movie is thin on the ground, comprising mainly of a road trip made by the protagonists Gaz and Cal in the aftermath of a "job gone wrong". Gaz and Cal are debt collectors with Cal being a bit of a loose cannon and the casting is just one of the major failures of this movie. Listening to the dialog Cal is a dangerous and violent psychopath who gets sadistic joy from beating people up....except neither Gaz nor Cal look like they could punch their way out of a paper bag. These people simply do not look intimidating at all, and it does drag you out of the movie at times. There is one scene where, with high-pitched screams, they play in a field with pretend swords made of sticks, and we're supposed to believe these are feared debt collectors? In another scene I could swear that Gaz is doing an impression of Will from The Inbetweeners.

Moving onto the plot; it's fairly basic, this is really a character movie. A lot of screen time is devoted to conversation between Gaz and Cal and I can tell they were going for the type of scenes and dialogue we get with Vega and Jules in Pulp Fiction, but the reality is nothing like that. Instead we get awkward, unbelievable dialog that is poorly delivered and just not entertaining.

So what else is there? Well there's a plot twist you'll guess in the first ten minutes and....that's it.

I appreciate this was filmed with a low budget, but if you can't afford effects, actors, post-production etc then you have to give me something....give me good characters, good dialogue, good something. Not bad casting, bad acting and characters I neither believe nor care about. Sorry, but this just isn't very good.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

Don't bother if you're not a fan of the books

[4/10 · 28 December 2002]

The most fervent of LOTR fans seem to be those who have read the books. Having not read any Tolkien I will have to review the movie as a film in its own right.

Although I have seen TFOTR (which I gave 4/10) I still found TTT somewhat of an overload of characters, races and politics. If you like the books and you liked TFOTR then there isn't any point in reading a review that doesn't declare TTT as the best movie ever...but for those fans of films I will try and point out the main flaws.

The biggest problem for those not fans of the books is that we simply don't care about the characters and nothing is done to make us care. People are introduced to us and 10 minutes later when they are killed/revealed as having unrequited love/had their lands taken from them, we are actually supposed to care. But why would we?

The other criticism would be the overuse of trying to make you believe that the main characters might actually die, only to reveal later on that *gosh* they haven't. To my count this was done three times and is rather cliche and boring. Quite childish to be honest.

To make it on its own strengths as a movie it needs to lose an hour at least, but I realise that would simply disgust people who avidly boast at the number of times they have read the books. I said about the first one what I'll say about this...if you need to have already read the books to like the movie and care about the characters then it is *not* a good movie, and this is not a good movie. I gave it 4/10 also.

On the plus side, yes the scenery and computer effects were all wonderful. As were the effects in Terminator 2 but I don't hear anyone claim that as being the best movie of all time. TTT is just childish nonsense that fails to appeal to children due to the running time and the fact that nothing really happens.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Don't believe the hype

[3/10 · 20 February 2002]

LOTR is "okish". I gave it 4/10. There were a few good action scenes but ultimately it is over-long and actually quite boring. It doesn't do much to make an actual movie out of the book, and I know it is part 1 of a trilogy, but they could at least have engineered some form of ending rather than just stopping the movie dead.

There isn't much else to say....before you believe this is the "best movie ever made" simply have a look at the comment history of anyone who comments here saying it is. Mmmm...look at that, they've all only ever reviewed LOTR.

This is the ultimate case of "the Emperor's new clothes" as the movie really has little going for it. People who say it is good are just saying so for fear of being branded a philistine for not liking what they are told is good by the hype machine.

This is one movie you can live without seeing. Trust me.

Gang Land (1998)

There are better movies that deal with the same issues

[4/10 · 6 January 2002]

I saw Pariah on television and I thought it was a TV-movie made in the early 90s. I was quite shocked to then discover that it had been made a recently as 1998, after both American History X (AHX) and Romper Stomper. Had it have been made earlier I would have forgiven its amateurish feel and, to be frank, embarrassing handling of the plot and story line.

A good way of seeing how ineffective this movie is, is to compare it with the things it is trying to emulate. The story itself (for those unaware) is lifted directly from The Crow by J O'Barr. If you want to see the same plot idea handled in an incredibly powerful, subtle and truly masterful way then read the comic (not the film). I'd class Pariah's handling of the neo-Nazi aspect as being more like Romper Stomper in the way it superficially deals with the matter. However Romper Stomper does it so much better.

To focus on the movie itself, it's all very poor. The acting is poor, the scripts are poor, the directing poor....the whole thing is just poor. Some scenes had me flinching with embarrassment they were so bad. Despite the fact that I'm slating it, I still gave it 4/10. If it's on television and you have nothing better to do then watch it, it'll pass the time, it's not *that* bad. But if you enjoy the violent neo-Nazi romanticising movie then watch Romper Stomper as it's better. If you enjoy the revenge theme then read (or, to a lesser extent, watch) The Crow. I don't really want to draw any comparisons with AHX as that movie is in a different league and is one of my all-time favourite movies. AHX is the thinking man's Romper Stomper....I wouldn't even want to say what AHX is in relation to Pariah.

Unbreakable (2000)

Relies too much on the success of 6th Sense

[4/10 · 5 November 2001]

I seem to be in the rather unique position of being one of the few people who hasn't seen 6th Sense. I found it odd that almost all reviews include 6th Sense and some people are mad cos it's too much like 6th Sense and some are mad that it isn't like 6th Sense. So instead of comparing this movie, I am going to review it for what it actually is, a movie in its own right.

Unbreakable managed to annoy me from the very opening shot. The way the characters were framed very narrowly through the gap in the seats got to be very tired very fast. I don't go to a cinema to watch 10% of the screen and I didn't buy a widescreen television to see 10% of that. This theme of narrowly framing the characters is carried through the whole movie and is somewhat overused.

To me the plot seems like it was taken from a short story, one that was then dragged out to an hour and a half. This movie would do much better as a 30 minute short as that is about the amount of content in it. The pace is slow and boring, the whole concept somewhat laughable, and Samuel Jackson is the only redeeming feature.

My opinion is totally unbiased, and it seems that this movie is riding far too much on the success of 6th Sense and it simply does not hold water on its own.

The Godfather (1972)

A case of the Emperor's New Clothes

[2/10 · 12 March 2001]

I don't see what all the fuss is about surrounding this movie. It is long, slow and boring. I'm partial to the odd gangster movie (yeah, I know, this isn't a gangster movie it's a 'family' movie...*yawn*) but have seen far better than this (Carlito's Way, Mean Streets, Scarface to name a few).

Judging by the comments left on IMDB people say this movie is great due to the acting, the cinematography, the direction etc....what about the plot? The characters? Isn't that what makes a good movie? Or are the people who so verbosely extol the virtues of The Godfather all film/media students studying it for their coursework? Do people say this is a great movie because that's what they hear everyone else say?

The Godfather is not a good movie and the emperor is well and truly naked.

Magnificent Bodyguards (1978)

One of Jackie's more interesting movies

[7/10 · 8 June 2000]

This movie was made during the pre-humour stage of Jackie Chan's career, and is one of the relatively few serious movies that Jackie did. I like his humorous films as well but I find they can slow down the pace a little. Not so with this movie as it's action from start to finish.

This is one of the more interesting Jackie Chan movie that I've seen. Jackie plays a bodyguard who is hired to accompany a woman through a dangerous stretch of countryside. Jackie is hired yet agrees to do the job for free...this is just the start of a complicated story line.

Unlike his more humorous movies this movie is out-and-out action from the very start. The fighting scenes are good and frequent. The story line has a few twists and isn't just the standard `I will revenge my father/brother' plot. Interesting things to note are the 3D effects, at one point they enter a monastery that has swastikas on the wall, then when the team are trying to pass through a valley they start to play the Star Wars theme!!!

Overall this is quite different from most Jackie movies in that the story line is rich, the action is frequent, and the twists rival Fight Club.

Not the best movie he's ever done, but well worth a look.

American Beauty (1999)

Proof that Joe Public needs to be told by Hollywood what a good movie is

[6/10 · 26 March 2000]

Why this movie gets the praise it does is beyond me. It is quite a mediocre movie dealing with subjects and themes that have been done to death. It seems that Americans like movies that satirise American life, which is all well and good, but spare a thought for the rest of us.

I live in the UK and outside of America this movie looses a lot of its power and impact. To us it's just another suburban midlife crisis movie no different from the scores of other suburban midlife crisis movies. The movie did entertain me and I laughed a few times, but surely for a movie to be critically acclaimed it should have international appeal? The way the Americans arrogantly define this American-only movie as good just makes us non-Americans hate it even more.

If this movie wasn't up for Oscars then it wouldn't get half the praise it does.

Mortal Kombat: Annihilation (1997)

Not as good as MK I

[3/10 · 9 February 2000]

This movie obviously had more money than the first but it was no where near as good. The plot-line was dodgy to say the least and it was as if they wanted to get as many of the characters (and their moves) in as possible. Unfortunately this meant that characters from the game were added purely for the sake of it. They weren't given any development or good fights.

The fighting in general was very poor. Raiden had the only average fight, the others were sub-standard. The fight at the end between...well, I don't want to spoil it; let's just say the 'the fight' at the end had awful FX and was impossible to follow.

Even the soundtrack was not as good as the first movie even though KMFDM were involved in both.

All-in-all not a very good movie on its own...put up against the original MK it's a terrible movie.

Mortal Kombat (1995)

Surprisingly good

[7/10 · 9 February 2000]

Most movies based on tie-ins are doomed to failure but this one works very well indeed. Visually it is very rich and the characters are quite well developed. If you've played the game you'll instantly recognise them and know what they can do. Even if you haven't played the game this is still well worth watching.

One thing to note in this movie are the lack of high-profile actors. Christopher Lambert is the biggest name in this movie and, ironically, has the worst character and is given the worst lines and delivers the worst performance. "I don't think so" and "At last, they are learning" have to be the more cringe-worthy lines ever spoken on the big screen. Every line Lambert has he ruins, although they aren't that good to start with.

The fact that the main fighters were all unknowns adds to the movie as you consider them as equals. Had Van Damme or Jackie Chan been in this movie you would instantly flag them as 'the star.' Despite the actors relative obscurity they do pull off some good combat sequences. I have seen this on video many times but there are still moves done by Liu Kang (Robin Shou) that have me punching the air every time I see them.

Another element that only adds to this movie is the music. I'm a KMFDM fan anyway, but I feel their theme tune really works in this kind of movie and every time it kicks in it just heightens the excitement.

Not the best martial arts movie ever but certainly not the worst. It is quite strong in a lot of areas and hasn't been skimped on anywhere. The action, the characters, the visuals, the music...it is all quite high quality and you're getting a lot of movie for your money.

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999)

And....?

[4/10 · 20 September 1999]

The kids from South Park go to see a Terrance & Philip (T&P) movie and have their little minds warped by it and start to utter obscenities. The mothers become outraged and start a war with Canada to stop their potty humour infecting America. And so ensues a study into the world of censorship.

The most vulgar movie? Pushing the bounds of bad taste? Making fun of every section of society? Nothing is sacred? Sorry, did you see the same movie that I did?

Much is made of the frequency with which the f-word is said. However this turns out to be purely down to the T&P movie, after that the swearing is quite minimal. Pokes fun at all sections of society? Umm... Cartman calls Kyle a Jew twice, but he does that in the cartoon anyway. No-one else has scorn poured upon then and I despair at people who state that this is offensive. Bad taste? No more so than the cartoon. There were two moments where I laughed out loud and those were just chuckles. However the 15 year olds behind be howled all the way through every time someone swore. Mmmm... Perhaps, not being someone who finds swearing funny, the humour was lost on me.

The best bit was the Akira send-up at the end, not that anyone will notice....

Basically this starts off OK then slows down. It's not that long but you'll still be bored by the time the end comes around.

And, by the way, no-one walked out of the theatre...but then I never expected them to.

Human Traffic (1999)

ho hum

[5/10 · 28 June 1999]

It seems that 'character films' are becoming the trademark of British cinema. Trainspotting and Lock Stock... were both good because of their excellent characters AND excellent story lines. Human Traffic has chosen only to include the characters and omit the story line.

It's all here, the bio-style introductions and McGreggor style voice-over. Once the film gets underway it all turns rather dull with nothing much happening. Perhaps if I was a drug-abuser then I'd 'get' the humour more but listening to people bang on about Star Wars and other trivial things didn't entertain me at all.

All in all this movie was quite dull and didn't go anywhere.

8MM (1999)

Good up to a point

[24 May 1999]

If you strip away the meat in this movie it is basically a private-eye seeks missing girl story. However the subject matter and story make it very interesting and I found it entertaining top start with.

The problems started to seep in after a rather defining scene three-quaters of the way in. All of the main players were in the same room and things came to a head. After that it was almost as if they thought "Well we have a private-eye/missing girl story and so far we've missed all of the cliches, so we'll put them in now."

From that scene onward the film took a real nose-dive. You have three "gun just out of the reach of our hero" scenes, one "gun just out of reach of the bad guy" scene. The "private eye one the phone to his wife telling her to get out of the house and don't ask why" scene. The obsessed private-eye with a wife who is going to leave him cos he's married to his job. The whole nine yards.

When Cage watched the suspected snuff film for the first time, the acting made me cringe and wince as much as Cage was doing on-screen. And the scene after he catches one of the bad guys and is on the phone to the old woman is, and I mean this literally, the worst thing ever put to film. I was so embarrassed that I just sunk right down into my seat.

The whole part of the wife was completely redundant, as was the plot-line involving the lawyer.

This movie had massive potential but was drowned in needless cliche. There is also a parallel with Se7en with the good guy being so immersed in the world of evil that he is trying to penetrate that he begins to commit evil acts himself. A story line that I enjoy, but again it's been done a little too much.

Would I recommend it? Not really. The good three quaters at the start is not good enough to justify the abysmal ending.

American History X (1998)

Powerful, pointless

[9/10 · 30 March 1999]

I'd like to start by saying that this is a fantastic movie that you should go and see. It is gripping 100% of the way through. The acting is superb, the imagery is breathtaking, the violence is thoroughly brutal.

However I did have some gripes about the actual intent of the movie. The story follows the lives of Derek (Edward Notron) and Danny (Edward Furlong) Vinyard. Danny, the younger brother of Derek, is instructed to study the life of his brother after he submits a paper on Mein Kampf for school. Danny looks up to and admires his brother and they are both neo-Nazis. Derek ends up in prison after a race related manslaughter, yet his time in prison shows him the error of his ways and after release he attempts to reform his younger brother as he himself has been reformed.

The first part of the movie explores Derek as a character and his white power motivation and ideas. Derek is not your stereotypical thug. He is intelligent and articulate. The whole first section presents both racism against whites and racism against blacks. Both black and white are seen to be equally discriminatory and violent, a war of two equal sides. Yet we only ever see the motives of the neo-Nazis. We are given the propaganda that the neo-Nazis feed on, social problems are dredged up and the blacks and immigrants are blamed for all of it and Derek is Hell-bent on putting those wrongs right. Apart from the awful violence there are no strong reasons given why Derek is in any way 'wrong.' We have no real reason to hate or despise him, after all the men he killed were trying to kill him. His father was killed by black people as he tried to save their lives. This whole idea prevails...both 'sides' are 'wrong' yet both are justified

In prison, however, Derek becomes disillusioned with his 'own kind' and turns from them realising they have shallow motives and are unguided. He feels the thugs in prison don't share his ideas; they are simply thugs. He decides to become a loner, neither friends with the white gang or the black gang. This leaves him wide open as to even survive you have to take at least one side. The only reason he makes it out alive is due to a friendship he develops with a black inmate.

This is the rather flimsy basis of his conversion. Separated from everyone he begins to realise that he has been fed a lie and vows to distance himself from his former gang lifestyle.

It is all-well and good seeing that Derek is no longer a racist thug...but what about all of the white-power ideas? All of the social problems that Derek points out still exist in society. Nothing he says throughout the movie is rebutted. So neo-Nazism isn't the answer, but what is? The movie leaves you dangling on this point, not really resolving anything.

Another interesting point was the cinema dynamics. I can't remember any other movie where I have squirmed in my seat, practically ashamed to be white. Half way through the movie I was praying that all would turn out good lest I be lynched outside...it really is that powerful. However as both black and white exchanged words onscreen I squirmed as 'my race' demonstrated their racism toward the blacks, yet the black members of the audience felt it acceptable to laugh out loud as the onscreen blacks were racist toward the whites...

So I would like to finish by saying that not only was I practically ashamed of being white, I am proud to say that at least I was ashamed.

Meet Joe Black (1998)

Great beginning, good middle, slow end

[7/10 · 9 February 1999]

In this movie Brad Pitt plays Death on vacation in a human body. I have to start out by saying that the car accident in with which he obtains his host is the best RTA I have ever seen comitted to film. Genuinely disturbing, but not as disturbing as the people who insist on laughing at unfunny things in the cinema.

Following from the interesting beginning the movie moves slightly into 'fish out of water' mode. However it dabbles in this genre just the right amount. It doesn't go overboard as you would expect in a kids' film, and these moments show Pitt at his best.

As we approach the middle of the film, the romantic interests come out and things do start to slow down. Some scenes are torturously drawn out and over-long.

Having been charmed by Pitt's character, we now come to realise that by not being human Pitt doesn't just not know which knife to use at dinner, or what peanut-butter is, but he doesn't understand the love or comittment that humans can demonstrate for each other. He doesn't realise that human beings are not toys that you can just take without paying for.

Come the latter part of the movie things have all but ground to a halt. This movie could easily lose half an hour. It is very unfortunate as the ending *is* good, just tainted by the length of time taken to resolve plot points.

All in all quite an original film, but you are forced to suffer somewhat before they give up the goods. Kinda like having to wait in a long queue to go on a rollercoaster ride, or having to sit through a time-share demonstration before you get to pick up your free prize.

Very Bad Things (1998)

This movie has a lot of shouting

[5/10 · 1 February 1999]

Here we have another supposed 'black comedy.' There were some funny bits but very few. I think I laughed about three times. The plot revolves around a very worn story where one event spirals out of control. In between scenes the characters all shouted constantly. I found this to be very annoying and immensely irritating.

As for graphics and gore...I must have seen a different version from everyone else. This film was not remarkably violent, gory or disturbing. There were few scenes of violence, and even they were tame by today's standards. The likes of Casino and even Saving Private Ryan were more disturbing.

All in all this movie delivers a bit of everything, but nothing of any substance.

Rush Hour (1998)

The end of an era

[6/10 · 17 December 1998]

Don't get me wrong, this movie did entertain me...but no more than any bog-standard Hollywood action film. Jackie Chan is so reserved in this movie. There is the odd stunt and some fighting but Jackie is obviously just getting too old for this lark now.

Even his more recent efforts were miles better. Rumble in the Bronx, [Mr] Nice Guy, we'll forget about First Strike. This was bordering on lame.

I'm sad to say this but Chris Tucker does steal the show and I found myself being entertained more by him than Jackie. I'm a massive Jackie Chan fan but...come on in Jackie, your time is up.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

Great action, but where's the movie?

[7/10 · 3 December 1998]

I was 100% gripped by this movie all the way through. Total action, great and disturbing scenes of violence on a level of realism never before reached. This movie DID entertain me and was shocking. But as an actual movie it does fall down.

For a start, nothing actually happens plot-wise. The confrontation between Hanks and Private Ryan when they finally meet is pure Hollywood rubbish. This movies tries to be realistic but the illusion goes at parts like that. On the same subject, people get mown down left, right and centre...yet our core heroes have bullets bouncing around their feet and seem immune.

However these flaws are no less than you'd find in any other movie so I think it is a victim of its own success. Because the action and gore is so realistic and gripping you expect too much from the rest of the movie.

One other thing in its favour was that it wasn't *too* over-the-top with American schmaltz...however it was there a tad.

God bless America!

Snake Eyes (1998)

When will they make the other half?

[6/10 · 23 November 1998]

This movie starts quite well. There are twists in the story (which were well filmed) but none of them really grab you and keep you interested. However, after all of the plot twists are resolved I thought we were now going to get the standard 'cop has to protect female witness' type film. But no, the movie just stopped...

If I have to moan then I'd say this; Luis Guzman (Cyrus) plays pretty much an identical part to the one he did in Carlito's Way. Also there was the lawyer character pretty much lifted from the same movie...and Italians in grey suits and black shirts all from Carlito's Way. Cage's character is a cold, uncaring one...then when some events happen to people that he doesn't even know his character completely changes. How could you be best friends with someone for that length of time (Cage/Sinise) and not realise that they were so evil inside?

This movie is the worst Nick Cage one that I've seen in a long time.

Carlito's Way (1993)

Best movie of '93

[10/10 · 23 November 1998]

This movie is simply fantastic. The only time I've been literally on the edge of my seat. Go see it. This is Al Pacino at his best.

Blade (1998)

Very average

[16 November 1998]

At 2 hours this movie is a bit too long. Very average stuff indeed with the budget obviously blown making the first scenes. I patiently waited for a kick-ass Vampire god to appear but what did I get? Stephen Dorff with his eyes tainted red?!? Very disappointing.

There's not much to say about this as it was so average. Spawn was a much better comic world adaptation.

The Hitcher (1986)

When fighting monsters be careful that, in the process, you do not become a monster yourself

[6 November 1998]

The main criticism I hear regarding this movie is the apparent improbabilities of what happens. The Hitcher (Ryder) always turns up in the right place at the right time and appears to have almost supernatural powers. This is a movie that requires you to suspend disbelief, but if you are able to accept the events and absorb the story you will be well rewarded. This is a movie set firmly in reality, but you have to accept that something almost supernatural is going on.

Halsey picks up Ryder on his way to California but soon begins to reget it when his passenger turns weirdo. The more Halsey tries to distance himself from Ryder, the more he gets drawn into Ryder's psychotic world of murder. The police think that Halsey is responsible for the murders, and the more he tries to prove his innocence the more trouble Ryder is able to get him into. Halsey's efforts are thwarted mainly due to his lack of identification, and eventually he has to resort to criminal acts to escape the clutches of the cops.

Throughout the film Ryder could have killed Halsey at any point, but never does. Instead he gets him involved deeper and deeper in criminal activities. At points he is almost coaching Halsey.

Ryder is finally caught following a brutal murder committed in such a way that he could never escape capture. Hauled into the police station we find that Ryder, too, is a man with no identification and no criminal record, as unidentifiable as Halsey.

Both sent their seperate ways (Halsey free and Ryder to jail) the bond that exists between Ryder and Halsey is so strong that Halsey pursues the police bus that is transporting Ryder to jail. Ryder again displays his almost mystical powers by breaking free of his captors and the final confrontation begins.

Before the final battle, Ryder throws down the shackles that held him in the police bus and, free, both men can pursue their respective fates.

And with that we come full circle.

This is a movie that you'll either love or hate. It's the kind of movie that still has you thinking about it 2 hours later. If you still wonder why Silence of the Lambs is so titled, this movie isn't for you.