Reviews

3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Inside (I) (2016)
Yet another horrendous remake of the sublime original
19 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
For those who have seen the French original, 'À l'intérieur', this 'remake' will be nothing but a series of let-downs and disappointments. I would maybe have been a bit more lenient if the screenwriter at least kept the original story somewhat intact. In fact, the first 3/4 of the film weren't really that bad (well, with the exception that the protagonist had literally 7 chances to kill the antagonist that were mysteriously not taken).

What really disappointed and frustrated me about this remake was its ending. I sorta predicted that due its intended American audience somehow, the screenwriter felt the need to 'anaesthetise' the film's ending, so as to spare the sensibilities of the 'weak-hearted' American audience. Apparently, the North Americans are treated with such a palpible degree of paternalism and condescension...so much so as to almost shout out that this audience is not yet emotionally capable of handling European-style bleak endings.

Yes, I'm talking about the climax. In the original, the baby is literally ripped out of the mother's stomach after it being sliced open. A satisfying end? No...but then again.... it wasn't supposed to be. The original kept the bleak and hopeless tenour of the film all throughout, up until the end credits. This vesion? Of course the baby is saved right after the antagonist is killed. Par for the course in American horror flicks.

So for those who have not seen the original.....do yourself a favour.... get over your aversions to subtitles and give that a go instead.... unless you just have to have your wonderful all is well 'happy' Hollywood ending!
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Atomic Blonde (2017)
8/10
IMDb Schills are at it again!
13 October 2017
Okay, so I just got done watching this film. I usually don't make it a habit to leave reviews on here, but what motivated me this time was the result of reading a slew of suspicious 'one star' negative reviews from people who have left extremely vague comments.

I found it very odd (to say the least) that on all of these so-called one-star negative reviews, nobody bothered to write any specific information concerning the plot of the reason for the negative reviews on these critiques, but merely just wrote generic insults such as 'this was a waste of time', or 'two hours I can't get back', etc. what's even odder, the vast majority of said reviewers have only been IMDb members for about a month. Funny, that! Now, I'm not saying that 'Atomic Blonde' is on par with Citizen Cane, but it was written well enough, had a lot of tense action-packed moments to keep one interested throughout, and in addition to this...had a lot of twists and turns to the plot to make the story very engaging! Any review on IMDb that tries to malign the film without providing specific enough examples that actually proves that the writer of said review actually saw the film should automatically raise red flags. So what was it this time? Some sort of anti-lesbian cabal who have made it a mission to lower the IMDb score as much as they can in order to preserve the traditional family ideals? Seriously, this is getting to be a joke! So for those out there who want a genuine review from someone who actually saw this... I think that this film is a breath of fresh air. This is one of those rare films that had truly mastered the art of suspense. Not only that, but it was so well written, that the end reveal of the true antagonist packed that final unexpected blow that I very rarely get from the plethora of predicable plots that are floating around out there.

So to all of you mysterious 'anti-Atomic Blonde' crusaders/Facebook group/posse out there: chill out! Just have faith in the fact that there are intelligent people out here in the world that can make up their own mind when it comes to film critique, and that don't need to be influenced by some bizarre propaganda from people who have never even watched this movie. Life is to short to waste it in trying to pursue some bizarre hatred crusade.
185 out of 353 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Listening (2014)
2/10
IMDb Shills have finally found a way to fake 1000+ reviews
22 August 2016
I didn't think it was possible. Until I saw this film...I'd foolishly thought that I figured out a way to vet the fake reviews from IMDb. If you see a suspiciously high rating on an unknown film with unknown actors on a meagre budget, then the first thing I'd do is see the number of reviewers. If it was 300 or less, chances are that the reviews were artificially inflated by the actors' families, cast, crew, etc.... Well lo and behold......this may not have had a 9 rating, but high enough to pique my interest, and had more than 1,000 reviews. So I figured it was one of those "diamond in the rough" indie films which somehow slipped underneath my radar. How wrong I was!

You know how sometimes you can just tell a film is going to be horrible after just watching the first few minutes of it? Well this was no exception. Wooden acting, stilted dialogue, meandering plot... "but," I said to myself "the IMDb rating is decent, so I have to give it a try!". Famous last words. Watching more of this drivel did nothing more but to increase my irritation and headache.... honestly, what was the purpose of those color-filters anyhow...I felt that whilst watching some scenes, I was taking a colour-blindness test. It's the whole cinematographic affectation bit where the filmmakers randomly add filters in order to add a veneer of sophistication over what amounts to (at the end of the day) footage that is no grander than that taken by your nan during a holiday in Barcelona!

Full disclosure: I couldn't force myself to watch all of this film... once they started on the whole derivative x-files "the government is now chasing us" part of the plot, I had to give up. Perhaps I may have had more stamina if the acting was on par and the story a bit more interesting and cogent. But alas... t'was not to be.

So back to my original point...No way in Hades did this film legitimately get a 5.6 review out of almost 2,000 alleged voters. Just look at the evidence: there are only a handful of actual reviews on this post (and if you strip away the obvious shill reviews, I think there are only three or four genuine ones).

So I guess that this is what it's come to now.....some ingenious computer whizzes now have the ability to create inflated scores which are derived from supposedly 2000 voters when it's quite clear that not that many people have probably even seen the film! That really irks me........as I hate nothing more than people who waste my time. That is why, despite me being a member here for many years, this is probably my first or second review that I've posted. This is how strongly I feel about it, and just want to warn others who are looking for a genuine review!
9 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed