106 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Glass (2019)
2/10
Throwing stones in their own house.
18 May 2019
Unbreakable: One of my favourite films. Masterful example of subtlety within a favourable genre. Well executed twist.

Split: Great film, with a Masterful example of acting, and how to use a character outwith the boundaries of just one personality. Unexpected twist.

Now, before I start on Glass, I would like to try understand why anyone would like this film...genuinely. I shall now take that moment as I recap the film in my head...

....

Nope, sorry. Not one reason popped into my head.

The masterful subtlety from Unbreakable smashed to smithereens; comic book this, superhero that, superhero this, comic book that. You would think they had filmed this for those who are oblivious to the obvious. Spelling it out for us at every opportunity.

The masterful acting whittled into a dogfight for who can seem The most estranged. And Sarah Paulson. A fine actress but this character was the major problem with the film. Every time she was on the screen, it felt like an eternity.

Can't even be bothere talking about it anymore. So bad. So so bad.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Live by Night (2016)
1/10
Fugazzi
16 January 2017
There have been a lot of times in my life where, by the end of a film, I have shook my head in dismay, at the thought of wasting my time watching garbage. Yes, this was another one of those occasions. This was one of the worst films I have ever seen; I say that with absolute clarity, without so much of a hint of over-exaggeration. To give you an idea of what the experience of watching this movie is like, I would like you to play out a certain iconic scene in your head. This scene is from the classic "GoodFellas" where Joe Pesci's character Tommy has been sent for. To be "Made". Imagine Tommy's surprise when that isn't the case and instead he has a grave marking his impending doom awaiting him. That (although slightly more intense..) is the feeling your left with by the time the credits roll. The trailer promises action, and car chases and cool deaths. By the end you feel like Tommy, wondering what would've happened if you hadn't been duped.

All i can remember from this film, is Ben Affleck sitting across from someone at a desk or cuddling a female. Action scenes are that of extreme rarity and any "shocking" moments are so recklessly placed, that they lose all impact. 45 minutes, boring the viewer to tears, followed by 1 minute of intensity doesn't cut it. It's simply not good enough. The countless trailers leading up to the release, the positive reviews, the cast and this is what we get? Walking out, I felt really bad for anyone who paid around £10 to see it. In a script that includes the Irish and Italian mob and the KKK all intertwined, I find it unacceptable that this is the best they could come up with. At some points I felt this whole film was made, just so Affleck could do his Boston accent again. It is drab, and I can't help but feel extremely disappointed. Everything about the film screams desperation. Each scene, outfit, the dialogue. Trying its very best to convince you that you're watching a genuine gangsters life. And yes that is the whole point of acting and films, but it supposed to flow, to be natural. This is anything but natural. It's...well...Fugazzi. I can only hope that this is a small bump in the road in relation to Affleck and his work as a director, as a mountain of a project awaits him and this is one he cannot afford to mess up. If Bruce Wayne is suddenly from Boston i'll lose my ....

Bloody knew I should have opted for La La Land instead...
27 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The Comedic Apocalypse is coming.
29 September 2016
After witnessing such a horrific film, I can't help but feel that we are barrelling towards a comedic apocalypse. Dramatic as that may sound, it is exactly where we're headed.

To a world where jokes are outlawed and laughing is punishable by death. Where rebels hide away watching true comedies such as "Airplane","Naked Gun"," Stir Crazy"; the list could go on. Hunted down by the dim, those who have had their funny bones broken, whose tears of laughter have been sucked back into their humourless eyes. Too much?

In an ironic twist, you may state that it is my inability to find comedy in this film, therefore my logic of impending doom on the Worlds laughter would be to blame on me and those who agree with me. Here's the thing. If you continue to make films like this and label it as comedy, eventually no-one will want comedies anymore, because what's the point in paying money to see a film, that's main purpose is to make you laugh, make you depressed? I mean, the four lead dweebs in this film are quite possibly the future of comedy films, take a second to let that sink in......the future! The likes of Richard Pryor, Gene Wilder, John Candy, Leslie Nielson, Robin Williams (I apologise for stopping here, the list is long) are no longer with us. It really is sad to see what comedy has now become, that people are out there that actually laugh at films like these.

Fortunately I didn't fork out any money to watch this garbage, I witnessed it at home and (naively) put this on in an attempt to brighten my uneventful day. Oh how it failed. There was not one silver lining, not even the credits (like most people may say in a negative way) because then a long list of people's names who contributed to such a disastrous attempt at humour proceeded to make their way up my screen and that depressed me more. Why did I watch the entire film? I did turn it off 20 minutes in, but went back in because you have to give comedy a chance, it's easy to make someone laugh if you know how. None of these nitwits knew how.
15 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Tom Six needs a new career (after a 10 year stint in a psychiatric ward)
18 June 2015
Due to the baffling cult following the previous two films had garnered, the completion of a trilogy was inevitable. Of course the first two films where vile and had their fair share of shocking scenes, but this one...well this takes a whole new shape, and makes me question if Mr Six should be put in a straight jacket and thrown in the looney bin.

The first film was all about a disgraced surgeon and his delusional, yet accurate, curiosities about the medical possibilities of a human centipede. The horror that followed was all in relation to that initial idea.

The second was that of a fanatic and his urge to duplicate and elongate.

This however, boasts racism, sexism, barbarism. It is full of torture, gushing with grotesque analogies (those i could understand)and just a film full of hatred that has clearly been clogging Mr Six's disturbed mind. Yes, many of these topics have been highlighted in countless films, but in most, they have purpose or are handled with decency. There are scenes in this film that are quite simply horrific: Rape, Castration, kidney intrusion.It's perverted and verges on being inhuman. The prisoners are stereotyped in the most blatant way, in what people will describe as an attempt at humor is just an insight into how this directors mind works.

But worse than all of that, is the acting. Yes the most important part of a film. Dwight Butler (Played by "Human Centipede II"'s very own fanatic Laurence R Harvey) is horrific. His Texan accent is atrocious and he is made to look like a bald, bloated Hitler. He was slightly effective in the 2nd film because they played to his "strengths"; he was creepy and... well ....that's about it. Dieter Laser also comes back to the "franchise", now playing Bill Boss, the wicked warden. It is his acting that is the worst, i say again...the WORST acting i have ever seen. No exaggeration, this is abysmal. All he does is scream nonsensical, indescribable, psychobabble throughout. Be prepared to turn on the subtitles, because you'd have more chance breaking the enigma code than understanding what he is saying. I have to wonder if in the midst of twirling about acting like a complete imbecile, if he thought he was creating an acting masterpiece. Well folks, i can assure you he wasn't.

As for Tom Six, well i can only hope he is committed.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
San Andreas (2015)
2/10
San BLANDreas
8 June 2015
Dwayne Johnson CAN'T act...I repeat... Dwayne Johnson CAN'T act.

Does he have an incredible presence on screen? Yes; his build and stature are almost herculean(which is THE reason he was cast in "Hercules") and his drive? Well that can, and never will be questioned, the man is a machine, his discipline is astonishing. Those remarkable qualities aside, he CANNOT act.

Everything is generic. His emotions, reactions, timing; they all lack genuine conviction. In this film (and in the majority of his other roles) It's impossible, as a viewer, to invest in his character because as soon as he opens his mouth, and delivers a cringe-worthy line or flashes one of his unnecessary, trademark smiles, you just can't help but begin a daunting journey, from optimism to despair. In my opinion an actors job is to make you believe they are the person they are portraying and i'm sorry but when it comes to showing emotion, Dwayne Johnson is currently incapable of doing that. Following in Ray's (Dwayne Johnson) unconvincing footsteps is Carla Gugino who plays his wife/ex- wife/love interest. Again, her delivery is dismal. Now, there may be people who would throw the blame to the writers, or the director for delivery or material. But i'll give you a perfectly appropriate example of how that doesn't sit well with me. Paul Giamitti. The whole film, for me, is garbage, but a great actor will take whatever nonsense is handed to him and make it work. That is exactly what he did. Why? Because he CAN act.

The film really does try its best to overpower the mundane acting, by bombarding the viewer with good, but highly repetitive disaster sequences. It's basically rinse and repeat throughout the whole film. Although (due to the film's nature) it is wise to forgive any foolish moments in the film, it really does take the biscuit.

Let's face it, disaster films have floundered in recent years and unless they are regrettably based on true events, they come across lethargic and show themselves in their true light. As moneymakers. Simple moneymakers. Oh here's a worldwide name, here's some CGI, take a cool cover version of a song for the trailer, that'll make up for the abysmal script, lack of actual acting talent (i mean what the hell was Kylie Minogue doing there? Seriously?)and the baffling lack of depth. It'll do its job, no doubt about that, but that doesn't stop it from being a disaster of a film.
5 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
WWE Hell in a Cell (2014 TV Special)
7/10
Hell doesn't seem so bad.
10 November 2014
At one point, the Hell in a Cell match was gruesome. It was guaranteed that whoever stepped inside would be victim to punishment. And the competitors put their bodies on the line in an almost sadistic way to thrill the viewers. Nowadays it is mostly just a basic No Disqualification match with a huge cell around it.

That is until Seth Rollins and Dean Ambrose came along...but before i get to that:

WWE Intercontinental Title - 2 out of 3 falls match: Dolph Ziggler (c) vs Cesaro

The event kicked off with arguably the best match of the night in terms of technical brilliance. A quite exceptional match, with one particular spot which leaves you in awe. Ziggler and Cesaro are amongst the best talents on the roster and hopefully one day they are in main event positions where they belong.

Nikki Bella vs Brie Bella

The stipulation to this match was that the loser must become the winner's personal assistant for 30 days. Who cares really. This feud lost steam the moment it began. They are both horrible actresses. They are both incredibly annoying. Yet i have to admit they are OK in the ring. This match flowed well and there where some good moments, but i couldn't have cared less what the outcome was.

WWE Tag Team Titles: Gold and Stardust (c) vs The Usos

Both very talented teams, but they have had much better matches in the past. It was almost as if they had watched Ziggler and Cesaro and then went out there deflated that their title match would never exceed it.

Hell in a Cell Match - No.1 Contender for WWE World Heavyweight Championship: John Cena vs Randy Orton

These two have faced each other over one million times. Well it certainly feels like that. The so called "feud" is so monotonous that every time they come together you can feel the whole "WWE Universe" collectively sigh in disappointment. It doesn't matter what the winner gets, no-one cares and this was not a hell in a cell match. I think there was a chair and a table. The rest was basic wrestling. Michael Cole can nonsensically announce it to be "one of the greatest cell matches ever" all he wants. It was lackluster and your run of the mill Cena/Orton match.

U.s Title: Sheamus (c) vs The Miz w/Damien Mizdow

The run up to the match was far superior to the match itself. MIzdow is quickly becoming a fan favorite which is great to see. An average match.

Rusev w/Lana vs Big Show

Again, the run up overshadowed the match. I am a big fan of Rusev. I don't think we have seen the best of him. I think WWE are saving his abilities for something much greater. The crowd was electric at points and they added to the match.

WWE Divas Title: AJ Lee (c) vs Paige w/Alicia Fox

This feud is marred in disappointment. The two most polarizing divas on the roster, in what should have been a classic. Unfortunately this was the 4th consecutive event where they faced off. This could have been so much more but ended up being a mess of a feud. The match reflected that.

Hell in a Cell Match: Dean Ambrose vs Seth Rollins

And so we reach the culmination of an event and also the end of what has been the best, most natural feud in recent years. Rollins and Ambrose have been outclassing most of the "top guys" on the roster for over 2 years now. First as the Shield, now as individual competitors. The story was built on betrayal and revenge and it worked perfectly. The match was certainly a testament to what a Hell in a Cell match should represent and present. It was violent, it was personal, it had everything. Even a controversial ending. The deserving main event, and showed Cena and Orton what a Hell in a Cell match is all about.

The rating is because of how much i enjoyed the opening match and the main event. Every match borough something to the table and made for a great event. It could have been a lot better of course, but considering WWE's track record it could have been a lot worse.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mr. Turner (2014)
3/10
Is that you Chris Griffin?
5 November 2014
I like art, but i am in no way an art enthusiast. I am familiar with the artist J.M.W Turner, but I have no clue what kind of person he was and haven't ever had any intention in the past of educating myself on him.

It is maybe those reasons which left me sitting there in a heap by the end of the film. It was so boring. So incredibly boring. As i said, i would completely understand if someone who was fascinated by the subject found the film enjoyable. But if you're like me, if you have sat down, with your mind a blank canvas and ready to let the film paint knowledge of Mr Tuner; then you are in for a long 2 1/2 hours. It takes forever. Apart from some stunning locations a few moments of laughter (very few) there is nothing. It is lackluster, and instead of witnessing the story of a genius and feeling inspired. I was left watching the movie equivalent of paint drying.

Did i fall asleep? No of course not, how could I? With a loud grunt, or a feverish cough, or even the worst crying scene of all time. There was no chance of drifting off because grunting and coughing and mumbling is the dialogue for this film. I get he was miserable, but the grunting was so excruciating. If i shut my eyes, it was like Beavis and Butthead where there. If i opened them it was Chris Griffin....i wish it was Chris Griffin, he would have at least made me laugh.

The thing is, you can make a film about anything. Anything. But it has to have a point, it has to leave you feeling something. But Mr Turner doesn't. I have never been so bored in all my life. Maybe i should've left, yes. But i thought something would happen. That his character would evolve, or the film would inject some life, but it didn't; it was the same brush stroke throughout. I doesn't matter if you are making a film about a artistic genius, it doesn't matter if he inspired millions. If the man was a boring, miserable old sod and his life followed in his footsteps, then it will not be a very good film....unless of course you are interested in the man.

I appreciate the acting, you could tell Timothy Spall really threw himself into the role. Probably had a sore throat for weeks. But it is quite simply monotonous.
30 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Some stories are best left Untold.
1 November 2014
With the spooky, captivating cover version of "Everybody wants to rule the World" blaring out in the trailers, it would be very easy (as it was for me)to succumb to some sort of anticipation. It is Dracula after all, one of the - if not THE- greatest, most iconic monsters ever.

However...when the credits rolled and the aforementioned optimism had been completely drained from my body, I couldn't help but feel like i had been duped. This is a clear case of integrating a legendary creation into a soul-less storyline.

Ten minutes in, it has lost a mass of distinction. Although the vampire issue was there, it was basically like every other film with swords and shields. There's a battle, Then, of course there has to be some topless action showing scars and battle wounds,(my heart bleeds, it truly does)a cheesy, romantic gesture, (although if i dragged my girlfriend into a bath, i would get pulverized) then there's my favorite. Everyone merrily feasting, only to be disrupted by an angry group of men, who are clearly outraged that they where each given change of a 20 (all coins) and forced to jingle their way around the dining area. It is the same old clichés. And apart from a couple of bats, there's not much to differentiate it from films from that genre.

In 1992, Gary Oldman pretty much did all there was you could do with Dracula. It wasn't a masterpiece of a film, but it was great and it did the job. There just seems to be a drought of originality these days. Dipping their greedy fingers into the past, just to make money; not to make a classic film. Frankenstein fell victim, and now so has Dracula.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hercules (I) (2014)
1/10
Antiquated and Asinine.
6 August 2014
I....well I....I truly don't know where to begin. I mean, after all the hype, month after month of promotion, Hercules this and Hercules that....this.... this is what we get?

As I sat there in the cinema, letting this film rape my eyes, I began to question myself and really give myself an internal telling off. I have this irritating inability to just walk out of the screening during a film. No matter how horrific the film is, my backside just appears to be glued to the seat. Not only was i upset with my lack of assertiveness, but I also lost faith in my fellow man. Whilst I was gradually chewing my face off, I couldn't help but notice a few people who where clearly enjoying the film. Laughing at material that was no funnier than a violent case of diarrhea (yes i know, ironic, because this film is just that). I mean it was bad.....really bad, not funny whatsoever. It was painfully predictable. And these people where...laughing. Why? Was it a case of "if you don't laugh, you'll cry"? I sure hope so, for the sake of humanity.

Every single character in this film, was diabolical. And collectively they create a time wasting tragedy. The direction was paralytic. Even the action is criminal . In the trailer, they show Hercules battle mythological beasts and I in no way want to spoil anything, but be prepared to see 90% of those "battles" in the first 5 minutes...i do not jest. It is false advertising at its finest. And as those 5 minutes disappear into obscurity, all you are left with is "The Great One".... Dwayne Johnson try his damnedest to stop his strong American accent from taking over...which he fails to do...every 2nd or 3rd line. But hey, casting wouldn't be about finding someone who can actually do the accent, or someone who can act, or someone who isn't cocooned in cheese. It's all about those muscles. Plain and Simple. Dwayne Johnson is an average actor, he was great in "Pain and Gain", but for this role? This was a case of biting off more than you can chew. And ironically enough "The Rock" acted like stone.

I must also add that if I where as shallow as this film, i could have easily used this as a way to terminate my long term relationship with my girlfriend. As prior to going to see it, our options where "Guardians of the Galaxy" or "Hercules", and my girlfriend chose this. Looking back that choice was like either having a 5 star meal or eating my own feces. So there you go, this film has the capability of possibly ruining lives.

If you want to see a film about the legend of Hercules, there is a perfectly good Disney film that caters to the legend and doesn't try to re-write or re-analyze it. And I can't believe these words are being typed by my fingers.....but...there is also a Hercules film that was recently made called..."Legend of Hercules" starring future Oscar winner Kellan Lutz.... and in a previous review, I trampled all over it and actually typed Dwayne must be shaking in his boots, well in hindsight he should have been, because yes people, Kellan Lutz played Hercules better than Dwayne Johnson and that....that is probably the BIGGEST insult I could ever give anyone...
13 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Boys of anarchy.
28 July 2014
"The Purge" is one of the most innovative and original concepts that has made its way to cinema in recent years. And i have no doubt that, because of the mass material and potential it carries, it will have a long series of films. It will be like the new "SAW"; one every year until the public become impatient with it and yearn for a culmination.

To say the first film was a let down is a massive understatement and i'm sure the majority of people would agree that it was poor and didn't cash in on its potential. That general consensus aside i actually enjoyed parts of the first film; i thought Ethan Hawke did a fine job and contributed to a film that was a lesion in terms of limitation. The major problem with it was that in the realms of a Purge there is so much more you would like to see. A family in a house trying to protect themselves from being victims to a brutal invasion doesn't quite fill the anarchic appetite of the audience; hence it fails.

So after witnessing the trailer it was clear that Scott Derrickson had set out to address that, by taking the Purge's events to the streets; seeing it through the eyes of many different characters. There are the victims, those participating, those seeking retribution, those using it to help their families. It delves into the politics and all methods of the Purge. And that is great. But by doing all that; trying to incorporate everything, focusing all their energy on satisfying the audience....well it appears they forgot to cast people who can act. And the midst of the frenzied chaos, all you have is one fairly good actor (Frank Grillo) and then a host of horrendous actors/actresses (the rest of the leading cast). And quite honestly they ruined the film for me. I couldn't go 10 minutes without cringing at their delivery of a line or just their disingenuous performances in general. IT puts a massive dampener on the film. I felt in no way attached to any of the characters, not only because of their terrible performances, but because all their stories seem so rushed and chaotic. I get that the film is meant to be hectic, but what was good about the first film was that the focus was clear...a family trying to survive. Simple. This, however has far too many characters; this leads them to become unimportant.

The film also comes across as anti climatic on so many levels. Scenes not following up, or just when you think things are going to get brutal, they dilute it...wonder why? Maybe it is that silly 15 certificate it carries. See a film like this should have no boundaries. The mere idea of having 12 hours, to more or less do as you like, is enough to send shivers down the spine of those with a vivid and fearful imagination, so why not convey that in the movie? Why not go all out? I will never understand the need to cater to teenagers. There a millions of people 18+ who would love to see this film used to its full potential.

Throughout the film there is clear comparisons with films such as "The Warriors", "The Running Man" and "Hostel". Now it might have been done as a tip of the cap, but if not then it is quite simply ripping off certain attributes from these films.

It seems, that despite my criticism, the film has been getting a positive review and i must say the reason for that? Well the first film has to take some of the credit.If it wouldn't have been so secluded then this film would have been a repeat of its predecessor. Which leads me to think...what exactly can they do to better this one? I have an idea.....18 certificate? Actual actors with the ability to act? Just ideas is all.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tammy (2014)
4/10
___/\___/\___________________________
8 July 2014
In my opinion Melissa McCarthy is funny; given the material, given the ball, she can run with it. I believe that improvisation is her strong suit. And in recent films she has even shown that she is also able to immerse herself dramatically and is able to draw empathy from the viewer.

So when one of her films comes out i do go into it with confidence that no matter how stupid the story is, she will at least contribute to making the film watchable. Unfortunately, this time around, not even McCarthy's volatile humor could save this film. Every now and then she is able to pluck a chuckle from the viewer, but it is a failure despite that. You would think that seeing Susan Sarandon as a chaos ensuing alcoholic grandmother would be at least interesting, if not amusing; but it isn't. It most of the time, is very uncomfortable to watch. No matter how hard she might try to convince you that she is capable of playing such a role, it doesn't work. Kathy Bates was solid as always, but when the cameo performance by unknown actors is funnier than the lead roles, then something is wrong.

They embarrassingly try to cash in on situations from previous Melissa McCarthy films; the singing in the car, running from someone to no avail. Although there are some moments of wit and creativity, far too many times it falls back into obvious, uninteresting attempts at comedy.

A poor attempt at comedy and although MCCarthy tries to bring a lifeline to a flatlining comedy, in the end...well it just dies.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Chef (2014)
5/10
Do not watch with an empty stomach.
2 July 2014
I would like to start by elaborating on my summary. You really don't want to enter the screening hungry, it would be a very bad idea. I, stupidly and naively did this and was left feeling sad. The food just looks soooooooo good. Advertisements where proclaiming "Chef" was the equivalent of "Food Porn" and it's easy to see why. I remember sighing and sulking at points in the film, due to good old envy. And i honestly swear i heard some moans from others....

Now, although (the amazing food included) there are some good parts to this film, it unfortunately comes across very chaotic. There are far too many scenes where people are talking, shouting, screaming over each other. Never mind the fact that that is incredibly rude, it also happens to be very annoying. It is constant and leaves a sour taste throughout the film. John Favreau is a decent actor and he does a good job as a leading man; nothing special, but decent. I really don't know what else to say about the film. I suppose it is a "feel good" film, but not if you're hungry it's not.

In conclusion it is basically Man vs Food, with a story and projected on the big screen.
1 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Kill me first.
28 June 2014
Now it is abundantly clear there is a largely tolerable market for an array of brain dead action movies. Films with no heart, no depth and lacking any creative juices. Its like they are just lame ideas on a conveyor belt and every now and then a bored director steps up and takes a random script just to give them something to do. Now Liam Neeson has previously been the go to guy as the ageing nutter you shouldn't mess with but this time Costner steps up to the plate (not field of dreams thankfully) but unlike Neeson he has no value as a character like this. He looks so uncomfortable in this role, he doesn't suit it. There is so much wrong with this garbage film that i would be better chasing a book deal with the mass amount of mundane material. One thing that made me screw my face up was co star Amber Heard (Vivi, who is the stereotypical, seductive screwball) and her ability to drive a car at ridiculous speeds whilst looking and talking to passenger. Its a little thing but it so, so incredibly nonsensical. And for a film that boasts action it takes a sour turn to soppyville and I hate when that happens. The albino was decent in the first 10 minutes. After that, he was unimportant and deteriorated along with the film.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A Million ways to get to the exit.
26 June 2014
Now considering who Seth MacFarlane is. Acknowledging the creative genius that flows through his veins. Taking into account the hilarity that has stemmed from "Family Guy", "American Dad", "Cleveland Show" and on a lesser scale "Ted". It would be easy for one to assume that this film would follow in their funny footsteps......BUT

Unfortunately it doesn't. In fact it comes nowhere near. It is poor, very poor. It does bring out a few laughs but overall it comes across desperate and shows in abundance that Seth MacFarlane should physically stay away from the big screen. He has a great voice, but his acting ability is terrible. I honestly think that in some cases shutting your eyes makes the film slightly better when he's on screen. His facial expressions are nauseating to watch as he so eagerly tries to gain affirmation. Maybe he wants to be more than a voice. So he has positioned himself as a leading man. I truly think this will be his first, and last outing as that. There are decent performances by others, but in the end it falls flat on its face.

There is so much about it that seems like it is plagiarizing Family Guy, but Family Guy has its own iconic stature and should not be replicated or transitioned away from animation. It doesn't work and this is evidence of that.

3.5/10
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Go away Minaj and take your fake ass with you.
28 April 2014
To be perfectly blunt, if you have seen the trailer then you have seen the film. Unfortunately it is simple as that. All the "highlights" are shown, the story is spelled out for you, and as it blatantly screams "girl power" then you know who will come out on top.

These feminist superiority films are all the same so if you have seen one then you have seen them all. And like the majority of them, this film is awful, just awful. As i said you see 90% of the "comedy" it has to offer in the trailer. The rest is just painfully packed with prolonged conversations and embarrassing attempts to make the audience laugh. There is one scene that made me sink in my seat, as it was clearly meant to be a scene where the audience laugh and continue to do so the more ridiculous it gets (see Wolf on Wall Street; cerebral palsy scene). Although that was its inept intention, it fell as flat as Cameron Diaz's acting ability. I like Leslie Mann, but that squawk she does can only be tolerated in small doses. In this film, that squawk is so prominent, i considered suicide. As for the one with the big...smile, well i predict her career will be determined on how much she is willing to show her....versatility, because she is forgettable in this film.

Ironically the only person that is worth mentioning is the sleaze-ball himself Mark King (Nikolaj Coaster Waldau). He, unlike anyone else in the film, actually showed more than one dimension to his acting. He was like a 3d cube in a game of Pacman; surrounded by things that like to put balls in their mouth. Speaking of balls.....there is the unforgivable casting of Nicki Minaj. Did they photo shop out the peg that was on her nose? Because that voice cannot be real. It was like Janice from Friends had snorted helium. Yet another singer who has invaded movies using their stature rather than acting skill to get the part; it is criminal.

This film might make woman stand up, united and say stupid things like "you go girl", but that feminist front aside, this is a horrible film, where ironically a man is the star of the show.

2/10 for the Playa.
16 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Locke (2013)
2/10
Locke the door and throw away the key.
24 April 2014
"Gripping", "Compelling", "Genuinely Moving", "Suspenseful".

Just some of the words of acclaim this film has attached to it. It has garnered an array of affirmation, and supposedly gets the heart pumping. Did it get my heart pumping? Was I in suspense? Was I moved? Did I find it compelling? The answer to all of those is....NO!!! A resounding NO.

I knew what it was about, and i had no qualms about its simplicity, but how anyone found this riveting baffles me. Tom Hardy is an exceptional actor, i will never question that and even in this dull, pointless story he does a solid job, but his ability to have a Russian, Welsh and English accent all at once doesn't save this film. The in car phone ringing 300 times, i mean why does he have to let it ring? He's going to bloody answer it, why wait 3 bloody rings to press a button in your car!!!!!!. Did he need to compose himself before EVERY phone call? It was infuriating. Then there's the conversations between him and his son about a football game; why would you be so mysterious about a football game? Is it because the budget of this film only covered gas and a phone bill? That they couldn't say the teams name?

Yes the film is unique, and there probably (and hopefully) wont be another like it. But that doesn't stop it from being completely pointless. The story so uninteresting, i felt no sympathy, that was replaced by apathy. I did not care about any of the voices or Hardy's character. Basically everything was his own fault. There was no real justification. Was i supposed to empathize with his situation, when he's having his little meltdown and trying to justify why he has chose this. I couldn't have cared less. Fellow motorists matching his mood didn't make me appreciate it either. It was slow, annoying, very annoying, and most of all pointless.
38 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Web of woeful.
24 April 2014
Let me start by saying that 30 minutes into this film i was just about to get up, casually walk down the stairs in the aisle, leave and go do something better with my time. The so called comedy that Spiderman so infuriatingly tries to convey is embarrassing. How can you expect the viewer to take any villain as a threat when all this pubescent dweeb does is make horrible, i repeat horrible, "jokes" in the middle of fight scenes. It really is a mystery to me. And i know that it is trying to stay true to the comic, where little spidey will "say something funny" in the midst of battle, but there are things from the comic that shouldn't be incorporated into the movie because it doesn't come across comical. Instead it makes it excruciating to watch.

Andrew Garfield is terrible as Spiderman; absolutely terrible. Is it his fault his dialogue and direction is detestable? Probably not, but his clear inability to execute them is. I do not rate him as an actor at all. And whilst he is dragging the film down Dane Dehaan is the small glimpse of hope to the film. He shows grit in his role as Harry Osborn/Green Goblin. It is his performance alongside the excellent action scenes that make this film watchable in my opinion.

Spiderman, undoubtedly has massive potential, but instead of capitalizing on it, Mark Webb (the irony kills me) has instead decided to cash in on a rising trend in films. I'll call it "The Twilight Trend". Films focused solely on attracting teenagers. First was "Twilight", showing how NOT to do a film about Vampires and Werewolves. Then came "Hunger Games"; which was a little baby version of "Battle Royale". Then came "The Host" which gave all the gullible, love seeking teenagers a movie about an Invasion of Aliens. Next it was "Divergent" which is an abysmal version of "Equilibrium". You'll notice that all these are based on books. And it has (in different masses) had droves of teenagers flood to see them, become infatuated with them, obsess over them. Spiderman reminded me of all those films. It was cheesy like them, it was soul-less like them, it was a watered down version of what it should be. All about a love story and nothing about an impending threat to the World.

As i said the action scenes where phenomenal; great to see. But every now and then this nerdy voice would spit out a sarcastic slur, and in an instant i would be unhooked. The potential for Spiderman is limitless and no doubt when it has run its course of pleasing little screaming teenagers, it will reboot. And i can only hope, that next time around they take it seriously and maybe bump it up to a 15 certificate, which would give more room for conviction.

4/10 for action scenes and Dane Dehaan.
33 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Routine horror.
16 April 2014
When one of these films come out, and i categorise it because they are quite simply all the same at the core, i find myself hoping for something new, something shocking, inventive, anything to completely separate it from any other demonic/paranormal film out there. From the trailer this didn't give much away, which was a pleasant surprise. The story was there, yes, but it didn't feel the need to show any of its frightening tricks; rightfully leaving them up the sleeve where they belong. And i was left slightly intrigued by its mystique.

It was a good film, i enjoyed it, in ways it had its own unique vibe, but it is not enough to distance itself from the rest. The typical "jump" moments, where silence is replaced with a sharp, loud noise. The story is re hashed. Cults and Entities. The one thing it tries to do different is instead of just admitting that there is something wrong, the professor is adamant that the going ons are because of the patients mind. Things are flying about and going on fire because the patients mind did it.....

Jared Harris (Professor Coupland) and Olivia Cooke (Jane Harper) are the two who standout the most. The rest are fodder; displaying very poor acting and their characters where very tacky. The film does have its moments (T-Rex soundtrack) and it does have an unusual mellowness surrounding it, but unfortunately, it is just another routine horror.
21 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Calvary (2014)
7/10
F**k being a priest.
16 April 2014
Brendan Gleeson, for me, is an excellent actor; he always has such sincerity in his performances(with the exception of "Turbulence"). And like in "The Guard" it was great to see him as the lead role again.

The story is a very unique one and although the film is full of dark comedy and wit, there are genuine moments of travesty and turmoil that slip in here and there and give the film much more depth. Topics are touched upon that may not be greeted well amongst some people; but these topics where based on truth, so there should be no cause to complain.

Every actor brings something to the table with their characters. Brendan Gleeson is definitely the star of the show as Father James Lavelle, he delivers on so many levels; it's like acting just comes completely natural to him. Dylan Moran plays Michael in what is almost a tip of the hat to Dougal from "Father Ted". Chris O'Dowd is his usual quirky self as Jack, yet shows a lot more emotion than in any of his previous roles. Kelly Reilly who plays Father Leville's daughter Fiona, gels really well with Gleeson. One moment that was very sentimental was the scene between real life father and son. As in one scene Father Leville comes face to face with convicted serial killer Freddie Joyce (Domhnall Gleeson). Playing complete polar opposites it was a nice touch and i'm sure was a nice moment for both.

With all the events that happen in the period of the film, i think it gives a great insight to what life as a priest may be like. The persistent problems to which people seek the answer from you. The grief you may take, the accusations, the expectation. The dedication and restraint is commendable. Is it my cup of tea? No. Not in a billion years, but i'm an atheist, so wouldn't be much help.

A very good film which gives you plenty of comedy and its fair share of touching moments.
12 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Raid 2 (2014)
10/10
Aesthetically addictive.
15 April 2014
I will admit "The Raid" had always been on my must see radar, but for whatever inexcusable reason i never got round to seeing it. That was up until a month ago. I was hooked from the very first moment; no exaggeration. The story had me glued and the fight scenes....well they are incredible. I cannot fathom how much dedication it takes to produce such brilliance. The only thing that annoyed me was that it has to end. Needless to say, i was chomping at the bit to see the sequel. Anticipation was booming and i optimistically pushed back any doubt that it wouldn't live up to the hype.

Even if there was doubt it would have been buried after 30 minutes of this film. By the half an hour mark, i knew that it was only going to get better and better and better. And that it did. The characters are gruesomely compelling. The fight scenes are better than the first outing. The detail that goes into everything is unbelievable; each location milked of all its potential violence; squeezing the life out of all creativity that can be taken advantage of. It is perfection in its purest form.

I was stoked to see Yayn Ruhain back; albeit as another character, but his skills where so pivotal in the fight scenes from the first film, that it was great to see him back.

The Raid 2 is so aesthetically addictive. It gets the heart beating furiously. It makes you feel like you're there. I admittedly felt the inner Bruce Lee several times; wanting to swing my leg out in a embarrassing attempt at a martial art kick; but i stopped myself, thankfully. This is the films only flaw; that you get so hooked and so invested that you don't want it to end. Yes, it is a stupid assessment and unworthy criticism, but when it ends, your heart that was pulsating like mad, starts to beat normally and leaves you feeling a little sad.....

That nonsensical negativity aside.....This films is quite simply incredible and is easily..EASILY...one of the best films i have ever seen. Go see it Now...NOW.
13 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Sunshine on mars.
12 April 2014
When watching the trailer I couldn't help but feel intrigued. Although it gave you a basic idea of what the film was about (the title is a massive clue), it didn't give any sign of the problem that would occur. I liked that, normally it is just standard procedure for a newly released movie to throw its cards on the table and show the inquisitive audience what to expect. "The Last Days on Mars" doesn't exactly follow in that tradition and leaves you guessing up until the moment the horror is realised.

Although location and purpose is completely different i couldn't help but associate it with "Sunshine"; of course with a less stellar cast. Just the crew falling apart, and mentality being tested in such environments. Not to take anything away from this, it does have its own display of originality, the location (mostly Jordan) was simplistic but effective; not needing Transformers to take away from the scenery. I thought Liev Schreiber played his part well, he gets a lot of flack, but he produces a solid display of acting. Everyone else just did their job; no-one really stood out.

Now although I enjoyed this film, there where several things that bugged me. Acting left a lot to be desired. The little flashback back-story was very, very anti climatic. Some of the characters where in need of a slap and the story lacked certitude.
17 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Aristaios must have been busy.
10 April 2014
Dwayne Johnson must be shaking in his boots right now. All those weeks on set, all the effort, the mental and physical sacrifice; it could all be for nothing. This year will see him starring as the Greek DemiGod in "Hercules", but it won't leave a mark on Kellan Lutz and his outstanding performance of the same character in "The Legend of Hercules"......

hahahahahahahahahahahaha...sorry i couldn't keep it up; my fingers where starting to dislocate at typing such nonsense.

This film is garbage, you can do all the slow motion u want, but when you compile a barrage of some of the worst special effects ever seen, steal formations from "300", and drench the film with verbal diarrhea and cringe-worthy displays of "acting". Then there is only going to be one outcome; a disaster.

I actually went to see this, with the intention of laughing. The trailer didn't exactly fill me with hope, but it did enough to convince me that it would be so cheesy and so over the top that i would laugh. By the end it was clear it had been a Herculean over sight to assume such things. I did not laugh.....not one bit....instead, it made me sick. Sick to the stomach that directors direct such films, that casting cast actors that can't act. It's a mystery to me.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Double (2013)
8/10
Quirky, yet ominous.
5 April 2014
"Well that was fu****g s**t!!"

"What a waste of time.."

"What was that all about??"

These where the kind of remarks i heard being spluttered out when the credits began to roll. Why? I have no idea, i can only assume they didn't understand, that because it was different it accumulated an array of negativity from those who are (describing in the most polite, yet deserving way) clueless. The thing is these people who spit venom at a film like this where probably in awe at a film like "Double Impact"....

It isn't hard to understand or follow; it is actually very simplistic; good guy versus bad guy. Not done to an obvious extent, but underneath the lightning fast dialogue, the intentional awkwardness, the random soundtrack, it is just that; Good guy versus bad guy. It is a classy film, wrapped tightly with wit and creativity. The scenes involving Eisenberg and his "evil twin" are executed to perfection. It would be easy to think that Mr Eisenberg did in-fact have a twin. He is very effective at portraying someone whose confidence and nerves are shattered; in ways it is his niche. He did however show a menacing side to him; a darker side. One that installed some reassurance in me, in relation to his casting as Lex Luther. Mia Wasikowska is great also. As she shown in "Stoker" she is in her element when it comes to films with a strange, unusual vibe.

If you are someone who goes through life satisfied with films like Die Hard 4, then maybe don't go see this. If you are fed up with crap films like that and like variety then this is perfect. It is a excellent, unique movie. The only thing unwelcome is the nonsensical heckling from those lacking an open mind or in some cases, a brain.
6 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
"Infinitely Forgettable"
25 March 2014
Despite the intrigue the synopsis may carry, there is a sense of emptiness that lingers throughout.

Don't get me wrong, i enjoyed this film. But the problem is that i know, that within a week or two i am going to push it to the back of my mind because it is quite simply...forgettable. Now, considering the topic and the nature of that beast, you would think that it would at least stick in your mind. But as the characters become unglued so does the overall structure. It comes across very random at points. There is a great deal of hilarity, and that for me was great; it would have been far too morbid without it. It is that bittersweet charm about it that does grasp your attention.

The cast is a fairly prolific one. Aaron Paul is quickly becoming a big name in "HollyWood", and despite him normally annoying me, he does a good job here. Imogen Poots has an irregular comedy attached to her; not something you would usually expect from a girl. Pierce Brosnan is like a Brit who is being exorcised by an American demon. Toni Collette is her usual reliable self and probably displayed the most genuine acting ability out of the four.

A unique story that had potential; but instead of crafting a classic, they settled for a nice film.....nice, but (to quote from the film)infinitely forgettable.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
I hate Justin Timberlake.
22 March 2014
Sitting about bored i decided to search Netflix for a film and whilst scrolling along the title "Black Snake Moan" caught my eye. I had seen this film when it was released, but as i was younger it didn't invoke as much interest as it did now.

This film is sensational. The story is riveting and what can be said about Samuel L Jackson and Christina Ricci? Both knocking it out of the park; completely in sync with each other....in sync....N SYNC!!!!! Which brings me to Justin bloody Timberlake.

This guy is a scene sucking, drama devouring waste of space. I just cannot comprehend why, why any director would sacrifice the overall brilliance of a film by casting someone because of their success in another field of entertainment. He is a singer!!!! Not an actor. He is terrible. Every "emotion" he extracts shows this obvious desperation and it is a punch to the face of the viewer. Watching two powerhouse performances and then a little cretin coming onto scene and destroying the credibility that was once soaring to great heights. Brought back down to earth with a FUD.

By the end of the film i was trying to hold onto all the great moments in the film; Jackson's soulful music, Ricci's captivating cry for help. But at the back of mind is this little sting, a prick if you will, that because of a certain somebody the film feels tainted.

Damn you Timberlake, i hate you.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed