Reviews

18 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
A must see.
9 June 2001
This is a first rate film.

Rarely are so many top actors seen together in one production.

What the director did was to take an Agatha Christy murder mystery and sparkle it with humour and dry wit. Maggie Smith is absolutely priceless and her bitching with Diana Rigg is reminiscent of Wilde`s importance of being Earnest. Each of the actors look as though they had a terrific time throughout the production as they camp up the roles but still manage to keep the serious side of the plot going.

A must see.
34 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Snatch (2000)
5/10
Poor sequel.
4 May 2001
I thought that Lock stock was superb and expected the same from Snatch. However, the film`s editing which worked so well in Lock stock doesn`t quite have the same effect here. Also, the violence here is gratuitous and leaves one a bit sick after a while. I was left wondering just what is going on in the director`s head to be able to think up such things.

Acting by Brad Pitt is excellent.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wilde (1997)
3/10
Fry may look like Wilde but can`t act.
30 December 2000
If you have seen Wilde as portrayed by Peter Finch in `The Trial of Oscar Wilde' (1960) then Stephen Fry will seem very wooden indeed.

Fry's only saving grace is that he looks the part but his acting is that of an overweight pudding. The rest of the film looks just like one of those tedious BBC costume dramas. Queensbury`s ridiculous stick on sideburns typify the quality of the wardrobe department.

I suspect that the character of Bosie (played extremely well by Jude Law,) was entirely based on the performance by John Frazer in the 1960 Finch film

This film is the result you can expect when a production is based around a single actor's (Fry,) desire to do the part rather than a competent director's vision.
10 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Not a patch on the original
12 November 2000
Don`t bother with this poor remake, see the 1951 original.

Being an English person who went to private school I understand that the original captured the atmosphere and emotions of its time. Certain films are made about a certain place in time which is where they belong.

The remake has all the political correctness and weakness of a soap. Also, don`t the directors know that Latin was removed from school curriculum twenty years before the remake was set.
18 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Almost unwatchable
21 October 2000
I have always been a great fan of the Goons and Peter Sellers but this film is dreadfully unfunny.

One scene worth watching is the dancing during the women`s PT instructions class, the routine is similar to the Tiller Girls` style and very polished.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A good Watson
8 October 2000
These two played a very good team,I always found Nigel Bruce annoying as Watson because Watson was not an idiot. Holmes would not have tolerated a fool.

Although a good acting team I found that the dialogue had been sanitized (typical British TV,) and Holmes` cocaine addiction played down, almost to the point that he had kicked the habit. Far better his portrayal in "The private life of Sherlock Holmes" in which Watson constantly reprimands Holmes for his weakness of character.

The actors were good and their characterisation was good but the blandness of the dialogue reduced the plots almost to soap opera level.
5 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A fine plot, completely different to anything else.
8 October 2000
I can remember watching this film when it came out and it has been one of my favourites ever since.

The atmosphere is slow but that is the correct pace as the relationship between Tony and Ann is explored as well as her relationship with Skorsky. Also, the tension between the thieves is very real especially as things don't go exactly to plan. Cooper is an idiot but there is always one in every gang and it sometimes doesn`t show up until they are put into a stress related situation.

There are two plots going through the film. Firstly we have Skorsky (played superbly by Cobb,) moving money for the Mob and wanting out and secondly we have Tony planning to steal one of Skorsky`s trucks. Tony doesn't realise what he is going to find when he finally gets inside the truck. Also, the treasury department are after Skorsky for his financial dealings and we have them just one step behind him all throughout the film.

There are some excellent moments of complete realism, the killing in the casino and the scant regard for life that the gang has as they murder a passer by in the dessert `Just in case'. Tony's instruction to end this unfortunate person's life was simply `Chop him'.

I have just managed to obtain a CD of the music to this film by George Garvarentz via Amazon. I wish the video of the film was available, a widescreen version would be very collectable. Especially if people knew that Gary Lockwood`s (Tony,) previous film had been 2001.
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Tedious.
19 May 2000
Tedious, you could be forgiven for thinking that Willis had an idiot board behind the camera and was reading from it - he is so wooden.

This subject has been done before and much better in films like `Canival of Souls,' and of course in the Twilight zone where they would have done the whole thing better and in half an hour.

There is little attention to detail in this film. In one scene the child comes through the front door just home from school. Yet, it is dark outside the front door. The child in the film has a 6th sense but totally fails to use it on Willis. I don`t want to list other goofs because I don`t want to give away the plot but once you have seen it you will see them.

In England Blockbuster video rental are giving cheap ice cream if you rent this title – you can see why.
15 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of the finest spy films ever.
19 May 2000
Excellent spy film with a wonderful subtle humour running through the script.

Col Ross: Palmer, I am transferring you to Major Daulby`s unit – he doesn't have my sense of humour.

Palmer: Yes sir, I shall miss that.

Later…

Daulby: I shall bite you Palmer and bite you hard, I don't have Ross's sense of humour.

Palmer: Yes sir I shall miss that.

The above is an abridged version of the conversations between the two commanding officers and sergeant Palmer who all work for British Intelligence. Neither Ross nor Daulby have a sense of humour neither to they even smile, he and all the cast are perfect, this is what the British Civil Service is really like (I know I worked in it.)

The Ipcress file is the first of three superb films in which Palmer is presented as the British version of James Bond. Taken from Len Deighton`s novels, the plots are superb - you have to pay attention, attention to detail is evident throughout this film.

The atmosphere reflects the cold war era better than any other films I have seen; there are no special effect or almighty chase scenes just fine acting and terrific, fairly complicated story lines. The best of the three films, for me, was Funeral in Berlin but you have to watch Ipcress File first then Funeral in Berlin and Billion Dollar Brain in that order to get the most out of them.

If you enjoy thrillers like Scorpio then you will love these films.
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Scorpio (1973)
First rate plot.
25 April 2000
It is rare nowadays to get such a good plot as this one. This film is deleted in England so I bought an American copy via Amazon - I like it so much.

I won`t go into the plot simply to say that this is first rate stuff with great atmosphere.

10 out of 10.
8 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Nothing like the book - dreadful.
26 January 2000
Don't let this movie put you off reading Asimov.

This is a dreadful film. My disappointment started as soon as I saw the robot's eyebrows move – oh dear.

I won't begin to list the contradictions as this long winded trite outing for Robin Williams meanders through a script which bears only a passing relationship to Asimov`s fine work. The odd rude word was so obviously added to the infantile dialogue to ensure that it didn't get the U certificate is rightly deserved. Watching this film is like trying to walk through a field of sickly knee deep syrup.

Don't watch the film, instead go and get `I Robot', `Caves of Steel' and `Bicentennial Man' by Isaac Asimov and read the stories, they are riveting entertainment.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not as good as the 1982 remake.
16 January 2000
The idea was great - watch the remake, this is one dreadful film.

A spaceship lands in a remote area and is discovered by a group of scientists who unleash a terrifying alien – what an opportunity for a superb film so what did we get.

1. A love affair with the air force captain and a secretary. There is actually more footage of the captain making himself up for the lady than of the alien.

2. A dialogue, which doesn't stop or pause, each actor sounds as though he has just memorised the lines and has to get them out quickly before he forgets. Every sentence is countered by a wisecrack from another actor – perhaps they made it up as they went along.

3. To avoid the cost of special effects we never see the alien ship – just a tail fin, the shots of the aircraft's flights look like stock footage bought from the forces.

4. Places where there should be tension and anticipated horror are filled with smart-arse wisecracks.

I enjoy B movies, the ham acting and lousy sets because they were often made with enthusiasm even if it didn't come off. This one however is B movie at it's worst, turgid dross.

The best scene is the title as `Thing' burns into the screen, the 1982 remake used exactly the same title sequence.

See the remake and be genuinely scared.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Excellent!
27 December 1999
Excellent! Not only does it capture entirely Hunter Thompson`s altered state but also the Ralph Steadman drawings which populated the book.

However, if you haven't read the book you may not understand everything in it.

Amazingly, the events in the book and film are true and record the decent into a chemical induced altered state. But there is more to it than just that, there is a long sideways look at people's behaviour and values and the false premises upon which society has evolved. If you believe that persons in authority are righteous and true then you will hate this film.

If you can think for yourself, read the book then watch the film, a landmark.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Notting Hill (1999)
1/10
Tedium.
11 December 1999
It is quite possible for this film to wash over you and leave absolutely no trace of passing.

There are about three or four lines in this effort which are funny however the tedium in-between does not make them worth the wait. If you take a few of the scenes from Four weddings and also Pretty woman add a quaint little London bookshop you basically have it. Also make sure you have a wacky girl with daft hair, the disabled ex-girlfriend, the failing stockbroker, a dreadful cook and a smelly flat mate with a Welsh accent and you have the total depth of the characters. All committed to each other as lifelong friends who share each other's highs and lows in life.

Attention to detail is important in a film. Hugh Grant`s character lives in a flat with hundreds of LPs on the shelves, suggesting that he is a music enthusiast. However, the record player in his flat is a piece of junk with it's equalisation settings set to screaming treble. Obviously nobody in the production team has the first idea about audio, or perhaps they were all too bored to care.

In order to prevent this getting the U certificate it richly deserves a few carefully crafted swear words were added to the script. A ploy often used to suggest that a film actually has something in it worth sitting through.

Unfortunately this is the type of film Hollywood loves and will continue to fund. A dreadful sure fire box office success with multimillion dollar marketing opportunities for years to come.
8 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I didn`t understand it then or now.
11 December 1999
I was a keen Shadows fan and saw this film when it came out and didn`t understand what on earth it was about. Now I am 50yrs old and still can`t make head nor tail of it. Funny, in a recent BBC radio documentary Susan Hampshire said she didn`t know what it was about and the only thing she remembers is the director throwing sheets of script out of his car window as it was re-written on as daily basis.

High spot "Theme for Young Lovers" by the Shadows, great melody written by Bruce Welch.
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pi (1998)
Destined to become a cult classic.
10 December 1999
Rarely does one see a film so well crafted that the viewer does not know where the transition from reality to surrealism begins.

Rarely also is a film so well researched and accurate.

The mathematical premises offered in the film are entirely correct and the mysteries surrounding this number have existed for centuries. I used to subscribe to a magazine called mathematical PI and each page would have the latest calculated decimal places printed across the bottom of each page. The references to the Pythagoreans are also accurate.

For those non-maths people, PI is the fraction of 22 over 7, is used in the calculation of the area of a circle and comes into every branch of maths, particularly electronics. The fraction, when divided out into a decimal does not resolve into a precise number, the decimal places do not re-occur. Mathematicians have in fact spent years looking for a pattern in the millions of numbers, which the decimal places give us but have found no answer.

American-Indian culture recognized that all things in nature are round which was why their tents were round (like the moon and sun). In fact, if you look in nature you will not see a single straight line. The film recognizes this and looks for a pattern in life/nature which PI could hold the clue to.

The decent into madness is entirely understandable and is exceptionally well filmed; it literally does take the viewer along.

Destined to become a cult classic - see it.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Worst Bond movie I have ever seen.
27 November 1999
I went to the first night in Southport last night and was so disappointed.

Brosnan is wooden, his eyes don`t sparkle and the way he smiles gives the impression he has had surgery to his face - only the corners of his mouth move. That aside - unlike all the other Bonds he adds nothing to the character, there is more to acting than just running around in front of a special effect screen. What a far cry from when he played the assassin in The Long Good Friday when he could convey menace with just a glance.

Dench is wrongly cast as M. M should be a civil servant, slightly bored with the whole affair and waiting for his/her pension. If you want to know what a British civil servant is REALLY LIKE watch the Ipcress File.

Robbie Coltrane with his stick-on beard, wig and phoney accent was ridiculous.

The other main flaw was the continuity of the film, there is no feel for the action scenes and it is obvious they were filmed at different times and dates. I enjoyed the river chase down the Thames until the end sequence when it became silly.

What a shame that this sequence of films is steadily going downhill, a mere shadow of former glory.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tedious
30 August 1999
The original McQueen movie was terrific and this could never live up to it but they could have done better. Basically, they removed the wit and character from all the players and Russo seemed intent on trying to look a sex symbol instead of the mess she actually looks.

Brossman is expressionless and dull and their perfunctory sex scenes were un-erotic tedium. If I want to watch sex I`ll watch a porno they should stick to the plot.

The whole point of the original story was that they could not trust each other and Fay Dunnaway played this superbly in the orininal. Russo looked jaded and soul-less and just going through the motions.

The ending was dreadful and not at all true to the story line.
6 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed