I'm trying to stick with it but it's hard. I subscribed to Netflix to watch The Crown and I enjoy some of the stuff available. they attracted me because of excellent cast, but I am struggling to stay with it. The principal people are plainclothes English police but they are always referred to as Detective this or Detective that. Similarly with the German police. But no one is called 'Detective' in the British police. In plainclothes, you begin as a Detective Constable, then you are a Detective Sergeant, then you are a Detective Inspector, then a Detective Chief Inspector, then a Detective Superintendent, then a Detective Chief Superintendent. Rank is precious and alway referred to. The daft, angry Indian detective once berates a witness for not deferring to her because she is the 'senior detective'. Well, how would the witness know when even we don't know if she is a sergeant and her younger colleague is a colleague? It's just sloppy. Lots of discussion about missing typewritten notes but nobody thinks to try and read the typewriter ribbon. And if a burglar came to take the typewritten notes, wouldn't he take the ribbon? Just nuts.
Reviews
40 Reviews
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
(2016)
Worst film I've seen in a long time.
30 September 2016
What's wrong with this movie? Let me try and count the ways. First of all, it is not a film. It is just something audiovisual that drags on and on and on with no attempt at three acts. It seems to think it is heroic for a journalist to hang around in Afghanistan, risking her not only her own life through her incompetence but all those around her, who know better and are cleverer and more competent, but have to obey her because of their relative poverty. And Tina Fey's character and supposed 'growth' throughout the film is meant to make us admire people who are in the end parasites and life wreckers. Martin Freeman's character in particular is obnoxious and unbelievable.
Entrapment
(1999)
Zeta Jones kills this movie. Surprise, surprise.
7 August 2016
The presence of Sean Connery can often rescue a dire movie but not when it is a truly dire movie because one of the main actors, Catherine Zeta Jones, has not talent whatsoever. This Welsh woman can mimic an American accent but that is all she does, mimic not convince, nor can she convince us that she is a savvy , experienced, hard-nosed insurance investigator. Without her, the movie might have been a success, but her presence was required because she was married to Michael Douglas. She has never provided a memorable performance in any of her movies, and not even in the little English TV comedy drama from which she sprang. She cannot even make the light romance with a much older man, Connery, believable, even though she had plenty of experience with her aged husband.
Kingsman: The Secret Service
(2014)
Begins well
12 January 2016
Starts well. Attempts to b e homage to the old Bond movies, but goes on far too long and just becomes silly. I only stayed with it because I paid for it. However, it at least shows that Colin Firth is everything that Hugh Grant can never be. It also demonstrated that Samuel L. Jackson must not be rich enough to turn down such nonsense. This must also apply to Michael Caine, even though I do understand why he was cast. The disgusting crudity at the end I presume is the result of one of the creators being married to Jonathan Ross. How can a film include a sequence such as this? I imagine there will be sequels. I will not be watching them.
The Man from U.N.C.L.E.
(2015)
Long-awaited remake a disappointing waste of money and talent
10 December 2015
From the start, I had my doubts. Solo is an American but uses a very English phrase and an English word rather than the American equivalent. This is the kind of sign that a film has been made sloppily. The director is English and should have known better. The set up is not what I expected as a remake of the slick 1960s series that was so ahead of its time in all sorts of ways, but this is explained right at the end. But the movie is the damage done. None of the main three characters are in any way appealing and there is no tension between them at all due to lack of characterisation. One just doesn't care about them. The plot is absurd and very hard to follow (I didn't really care but as I had rented it for a fixed time from iTunes, I wanted to get my moneys worth and saw it through although I did stop and start a lot). Because the dialogue and action are so dull it would have seemed to long at 90 minutes but this turkey goes on for almost two hours. The introduction of Hugh Grant as Mr Waverly was the last straw. Don't they know he can only do drippy romcoms? And making him a Commander of Naval Intelligence as a nod to Commander Bond of Naval Intelligence, created by RNVR Commander Ian Fleming of Naval Intelligence, who also helped create the Man from UNCLE is just a bit of a stretch. And if he did hold that command, he would have been dressed in an RN Commander's uniform when aboard one of Her Msjesty's ships. Avoid this film at all costs. And the sequel!
The Sweeney
(2012)
So bad in every single way
24 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I really had to review this to vent my spleen. How bad is it? Let me count the ways. Long and rambling with no real plot. Doesn't the writer know about the three act structure? It was obvious from the start that there was another reason for the incident at the end of the jeweller robbery but it took the Sweeney a long time to figure it out. Winstone and his tough Cockney geezer stuff is so boring particularly now he's a fat old git. And fat old its don't get young women except in the movies and on TV and why couldn't we see her arse instead of his fat old one? The proper tension between Haskins and Regan that was in the TV series isn't there. Damian Lewis as Haskins just seems to share a lot of sympathy for Regan's approach whereas Haskins in the TV series always had an eye on upstairs, probably because he was a Superintendent not a DCI like Lewis is. And Carter in the series was a sergeant not a DC as in the film. No constable not enough a DCI could afford to live where Carter lives. They use the term 'Officer' and 'gun and badge' and 'You have the right to remain silent' which are all American terms...Did they think that would help them succeed in America when 'Sarge' and 'Inspector' and a different caution would have been understandable? And overuse of Canary Wharf is a sign of low budget and totally unrepresentative of London. It's easier and cheaper to film in CW than in real London and as a result too many films and TV feature the grim background. Carter is a joke, looks like a bum and looks like he couldn't fight out of a paper bag. The music at the end has an arrangement that nods slightly to the great theme of the TV series. I only watched it to the end because I was stuck in a strange country and had paid money to download it. What a lot of rubbish.
The Last King of Scotland
(2006)
The cuddliness of evil
18 February 2014
I watched this last night after buying DVD even though I probably have another copy anyway, because I do like the film despite its many flaws. In the end, it's Forest Whitaker's portrayal of Idi Amin that carries it off. Neither of the actors who play Amin in the Entebbe films quite bring it off, although they tried hard. In this film, the cuddliness of evil is done very well. Even though the Scottish doctor is fictional, his story is believable because he is weak, needy and self-destructive (sleep with a murdering president's wife when there are plenty other women available, and it's why he bonds so well with Amin. He is slimy so it makes it easier for us also to bond with Amin and hate ourselves for doing so. People that are old enough, like me, remember well our ambivalent view of Amin. A monster, perhaps, but one who both loved and hated the British; a phenomenon that exists still in Africa. And for those who comment on Gillian Anderson's British accent......she was born in Britain and adopts a British accent when she is in Britain.
Boys from the Blackstuff
(1982)
Drama that pegs Liverpool as Self Pity City
22 October 2013
While Bleasdale wrote a lot of this before it was screened, it has always been obvious to me that the BBC put it on the year after the great success of Auf Wiedersehen, Pet, on ITV, done by the then Central TV franchise rather than Tyne Tees TV, the franchise for the area where the Auf Wiedersehen Pet boys are from.
AWP covered the same subject as BFTBS, the joblessness of working class blokes from the north where de-industrialisation was taking away their livelihood and way of life.
But the difference was the AWP dealt with it with guts and optimism and, to paraphrase a misused quote from a Tory at the time, 'they got on their bikes and looked for work', and did it with good humour as well as having some human problems along the way. By contrast, the writer of BFTBS made it overly and overtly political so you couldn't believe in the characters. Instead, the much better writers of AWP would have the leader of the gang, Dennis, say stuff to his mates within a plot: 'I've seen blokes like you before, you lose your money, you lose your passports, and you get absurdly patriotic for a country that couldn't employ you in the first place!'.
Much, much better. For me, people like Bleasdale give succour to the people who call Liverpool 'Self Pity City'.
Liverpudlians, Scousers, love to think they are funny. They are not.
The Geordies of AWP were funny, and Geordies generally are.
No wonder AWP got two more series, which BFTBS didn't. BFTBS only got its chance because it was funded by a British poll tax called the TV licence fee.
AWP covered the same subject as BFTBS, the joblessness of working class blokes from the north where de-industrialisation was taking away their livelihood and way of life.
But the difference was the AWP dealt with it with guts and optimism and, to paraphrase a misused quote from a Tory at the time, 'they got on their bikes and looked for work', and did it with good humour as well as having some human problems along the way. By contrast, the writer of BFTBS made it overly and overtly political so you couldn't believe in the characters. Instead, the much better writers of AWP would have the leader of the gang, Dennis, say stuff to his mates within a plot: 'I've seen blokes like you before, you lose your money, you lose your passports, and you get absurdly patriotic for a country that couldn't employ you in the first place!'.
Much, much better. For me, people like Bleasdale give succour to the people who call Liverpool 'Self Pity City'.
Liverpudlians, Scousers, love to think they are funny. They are not.
The Geordies of AWP were funny, and Geordies generally are.
No wonder AWP got two more series, which BFTBS didn't. BFTBS only got its chance because it was funded by a British poll tax called the TV licence fee.
Zero Dark Thirty
(2012)
Worst film I've seen in a long time; a big missed opportunity
7 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
What a pity one cannot give a 0 score. There's absolutely no saving grace to this film at all, not even the denouement - the attack on the 'fortress' where Bin Laden is and where he is killed. (NOt sure this is a spoiler since we were told by the US that OBL was there and was killed). Hilarious anyway that one of the choppers crashed. It seems that in all American rescues they must destroy at least one helicopter, from Iran through Somalia to Pakistan.
Anyway, it takes a long, long time to get there, in which we have to watch completely unsympathetic characters about which we care little, witness torture scenes where the torturers take too much delight in their work and seem worse than Nazis, and where we follow a completely bonkers CIA woman who probably cannot spell the word insubordination never mind avoid it No CIA analyst or any government employee would last five minutes with her attitude and actions.
It got to the point where I was cheering when anything bad happened to the Americans, who are supposed to be the good guys.
Also the audio used at the beginning from Sept 11. Whether it was real or not, it was an absolute insult to the victims and their families.
Crap dialogue, totally unfocused 'story line'.
When one thinks of low budget revenge films such as Raid on Entebbe and Victory at Entebbe and classier ones such as Munich which were gripping and made one feel good about the actions taken, one would think Hollywood could have made a superb movie about this event.
After Homeland and the manic Carrie and this with the crazy Maya, I would expect lots of off the wall women thinking they were ideal candidates to be front-line CIA officers in the fight against terrorism.
A missed opportunity to tell a stirring tale, possibly because a woman director wanted to make a feminist statement using a woman as the main character, drawing the men as idiots who were all wrong when the woman was totally right.
And creating a film that depicts US servicemen and civilian officers as amoral, torturing murderers is not the best way to convince the population that the fight against terrorism is not in fact the right way to stir up even more hatred and even more recruits to Jihad against the Great Satan.
Anyway, it takes a long, long time to get there, in which we have to watch completely unsympathetic characters about which we care little, witness torture scenes where the torturers take too much delight in their work and seem worse than Nazis, and where we follow a completely bonkers CIA woman who probably cannot spell the word insubordination never mind avoid it No CIA analyst or any government employee would last five minutes with her attitude and actions.
It got to the point where I was cheering when anything bad happened to the Americans, who are supposed to be the good guys.
Also the audio used at the beginning from Sept 11. Whether it was real or not, it was an absolute insult to the victims and their families.
Crap dialogue, totally unfocused 'story line'.
When one thinks of low budget revenge films such as Raid on Entebbe and Victory at Entebbe and classier ones such as Munich which were gripping and made one feel good about the actions taken, one would think Hollywood could have made a superb movie about this event.
After Homeland and the manic Carrie and this with the crazy Maya, I would expect lots of off the wall women thinking they were ideal candidates to be front-line CIA officers in the fight against terrorism.
A missed opportunity to tell a stirring tale, possibly because a woman director wanted to make a feminist statement using a woman as the main character, drawing the men as idiots who were all wrong when the woman was totally right.
And creating a film that depicts US servicemen and civilian officers as amoral, torturing murderers is not the best way to convince the population that the fight against terrorism is not in fact the right way to stir up even more hatred and even more recruits to Jihad against the Great Satan.
Perrier's Bounty
(2009)
Not sure I'll get thru this
3 November 2012
I cannot imagine why anyone likes anything about this film. I'm about 20 minutes into it, taking a break from the boring task at home of putting some curtains up. Putting up curtains is becoming an attractive alternative to watching this piece of rubbish. It's a good argument for countries not to have a film board, as I see this was subsidised by the Irish Film Board. Quite why a country would use its tax money to finance a movie that shows its capital as full of violent loan sharks and hapless drug addicts is beyond me. It seems to be an inferior Irish copy of the already inferior type of gangster Mockney movies produced by the former Mrs Madonna.
Savages
(I) (2012)
Bought it because of Oliver Stone's name and disappointed
10 September 2012
Let me first say that I bought a pirate copy of this...on a whim from a Nigerian hawking outside the restaurant I was in on Corfu, so sorry about that. In the end, I was glad it only cost me a couple of euros, otherwise I'd have felt robbed if I bought it on Amazon or went to see it at the movies.
All I can say about it was it was OK for a slow evening watching it in a hotel room. I thought it would be good because it was Oliver Stone. It was just a succession of episodes from one to the other. I couldn't identify with any of the characters, and Travolta....well, he just wasn't trying at all.
I didn't care about the kidnapped girl and like other reviewers, I have absolutely no idea why this menage a trois was supposed to be so solid that the two guys - who are very different so how does the girl love them both? - risk everything, including their lives, for her.
Forget every other criticism, the central aspect of the menage just does not add up so the entire plot is built on nothing. Two extremely rich young guys living in southern California who don't have to work share one woman? I don't think so.
And here's a slight spoiler. At the end, the narrator, O, says people may be wondering where they are 'In Africa, or Kenya, or....' Well, young miss, Kenya is an African country. I know Americans are insular, and understandably so, but how could no one on the production team pick up on this clunker?
All I can say about it was it was OK for a slow evening watching it in a hotel room. I thought it would be good because it was Oliver Stone. It was just a succession of episodes from one to the other. I couldn't identify with any of the characters, and Travolta....well, he just wasn't trying at all.
I didn't care about the kidnapped girl and like other reviewers, I have absolutely no idea why this menage a trois was supposed to be so solid that the two guys - who are very different so how does the girl love them both? - risk everything, including their lives, for her.
Forget every other criticism, the central aspect of the menage just does not add up so the entire plot is built on nothing. Two extremely rich young guys living in southern California who don't have to work share one woman? I don't think so.
And here's a slight spoiler. At the end, the narrator, O, says people may be wondering where they are 'In Africa, or Kenya, or....' Well, young miss, Kenya is an African country. I know Americans are insular, and understandably so, but how could no one on the production team pick up on this clunker?
The Newsroom
(2012– )
Great series, apart from miscast daffy Mac character
8 September 2012
I just finished watching the final episode today and while I'm very positive about its pulling power and entertainment value, I do find it a bit niggling that, as with the West Wing, there is a bias towards liberalism. With of course the added trick here that (possible spoiler for those who have not seen all episodes) that Will is a registered republican but still acts like the typical media person liberal. This is probably the price we have to pay for quality TV but it is irritating nevertheless.
Extremely good tho' the way real-life stories are dealt with by a fictional newsroom.
Biggest mistake of all, however, was the casting of Emily Mortimer, a fully paid-up member of the British luvvie set whose father was the playwright, film and TV screenwriter, John Mortimer, so she is also part of the British media aristocracy and whoops no wonder she gets parts she doesn't really rate.
For instance, it rankles that she uses a British accent, even though she is meant to be American. Couldn't she learn an American accent. Other British-born and raised actresses have done so, including Gillian Anderson (who speaks with a British accent when in the UK), Rachel Weisz and Michael Douglas' Welsh-born wife (her name escapes me).
It's a bit lazy of the writers to pass off her accent as because her father was 'Mrs Thatcher's Ambassador to the UN' (Countries, not prime ministers, have UN ambassadors, and given that she seems to be about 40 and Thatcher was in power between 1979 and 1990, I do wonder when her father was supposed to have served....).
And her performance is daffy in the extreme and it's unbelievable that such a lightweight character could have been a tough war correspondent and a TV news station executive producer.
Extremely good tho' the way real-life stories are dealt with by a fictional newsroom.
Biggest mistake of all, however, was the casting of Emily Mortimer, a fully paid-up member of the British luvvie set whose father was the playwright, film and TV screenwriter, John Mortimer, so she is also part of the British media aristocracy and whoops no wonder she gets parts she doesn't really rate.
For instance, it rankles that she uses a British accent, even though she is meant to be American. Couldn't she learn an American accent. Other British-born and raised actresses have done so, including Gillian Anderson (who speaks with a British accent when in the UK), Rachel Weisz and Michael Douglas' Welsh-born wife (her name escapes me).
It's a bit lazy of the writers to pass off her accent as because her father was 'Mrs Thatcher's Ambassador to the UN' (Countries, not prime ministers, have UN ambassadors, and given that she seems to be about 40 and Thatcher was in power between 1979 and 1990, I do wonder when her father was supposed to have served....).
And her performance is daffy in the extreme and it's unbelievable that such a lightweight character could have been a tough war correspondent and a TV news station executive producer.
In Time
(2011)
Such a stupid movie. Time equals money...Doh
2 February 2012
How anyone not manacled to their seat could get through the whole of this entire movie is beyond me.
At first, the idea that time is all everyone cares about and that they have this time clock on their forearm is interesting, but once you see (is this a spoiler coming up? I don't think so, but look away) them punching in time after work and spending time on various things, ie it is money, then so what? So you get rich people in different time zones (neighbourhoods0 who have lots of time.
Well, richer people have always lived longer.
And what is the motivation of the timekeepers, who are given only a day at a time? I just cannot go on. Some many holes in the whole thing. Not least, we don't care if anyone lives or dies in this, and the 'English' villain is such a ponce and a wimp.
When will Hollywood give up giving 'English' accents to its villains. You got rid of us English a long time ago. Where the hell did you think many of you came from? Get over it.
We won't mention the fact that it was you guys who, once there without us, erm, did you know what, as you took over the north American continent for yourselves.
Casting an Englishman as a villain in movies can't rewrite history.
Anyway, this is just such a stupid film.
At first, the idea that time is all everyone cares about and that they have this time clock on their forearm is interesting, but once you see (is this a spoiler coming up? I don't think so, but look away) them punching in time after work and spending time on various things, ie it is money, then so what? So you get rich people in different time zones (neighbourhoods0 who have lots of time.
Well, richer people have always lived longer.
And what is the motivation of the timekeepers, who are given only a day at a time? I just cannot go on. Some many holes in the whole thing. Not least, we don't care if anyone lives or dies in this, and the 'English' villain is such a ponce and a wimp.
When will Hollywood give up giving 'English' accents to its villains. You got rid of us English a long time ago. Where the hell did you think many of you came from? Get over it.
We won't mention the fact that it was you guys who, once there without us, erm, did you know what, as you took over the north American continent for yourselves.
Casting an Englishman as a villain in movies can't rewrite history.
Anyway, this is just such a stupid film.
The Ides of March
(2011)
Great cast, great performances, but truncated and unconvincing
30 January 2012
I really couldn't believe it when this movie came to the end. I thought it was about where it should be at the end of an Act Two.
The performances and cast are great. Clooney was tailor-made to play a presidential candidate (as Robert Redford always was) and I hope this film hasn't spoiled his chances of doing another before he gets too old.
And Philip Seymour Hoffmann excels in any role and his range is just amazing, from Capote to Charlie Wilson's War.
The background of political in-fighting is also scripted really well.
However, it was ultimately unconvincing and that was probably down to its too-short running time. Not enough time for soul-searching and the rationale behind a complete character change.
And it was totally unconvincing for a 20-year-old Molly, a serious political intern, to come on to Stephen the way she did, particularly after what had just happened to her (can't say any more as that would be a spoiler).
Even so, worth watching and it did grab me, but felt cheated at the end.
The performances and cast are great. Clooney was tailor-made to play a presidential candidate (as Robert Redford always was) and I hope this film hasn't spoiled his chances of doing another before he gets too old.
And Philip Seymour Hoffmann excels in any role and his range is just amazing, from Capote to Charlie Wilson's War.
The background of political in-fighting is also scripted really well.
However, it was ultimately unconvincing and that was probably down to its too-short running time. Not enough time for soul-searching and the rationale behind a complete character change.
And it was totally unconvincing for a 20-year-old Molly, a serious political intern, to come on to Stephen the way she did, particularly after what had just happened to her (can't say any more as that would be a spoiler).
Even so, worth watching and it did grab me, but felt cheated at the end.
Trespass
(2011)
What a waste of Kidman and Cage
1 December 2011
I can't believe this film is only 91 minutes long. Last night it seemed like ten hours. No proper story arc. We don't really care about the main characters (awful family with too much money, or at least living that way) and grossly incompetent and cruel robbers.
How does something like this get made. I am glad to have read the trivia about is production costs and audience figures. It shows how stupid Hollywood can be and how people have good taste.
And the kind of dumbo businessman that Cage plays would have had a daffy young blonde wife and his daughter would be from a previous marriage, but the grossly bad taste of their housing and decor rings very true, but then again the film-makers probably thought it was wonderful.
How does something like this get made. I am glad to have read the trivia about is production costs and audience figures. It shows how stupid Hollywood can be and how people have good taste.
And the kind of dumbo businessman that Cage plays would have had a daffy young blonde wife and his daughter would be from a previous marriage, but the grossly bad taste of their housing and decor rings very true, but then again the film-makers probably thought it was wonderful.
Midnight in Paris
(2011)
Well, you have to watch it. Once.
3 November 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Because it is a Woody Allen movie, we have to watch it.
But this one, hmmm, even though I was charmed by it throughout, it was the sort of charm described by Evelyn Waugh in Brideshead.
It begins with postcard/chocolate box pics of Paris that go on and on, and which we could do without.
And there's a rankle throughout. We see how Owen's character goes back in time, but we don't see how he gets back, and the difference between the 20s and late nineteenth century is just not marked enough.
And the biggest rankle is what does he do for money? It's bad enough suspending our disbelief when someone with long hair, an almost-beard an no tie is allowed into some of the best places in Paris of long ago. and nobody comments on his appearance. This guy should try being admitted into the Ritz in London even at breakfast time in 2011.
But no money? Couldn't there have been a plot device whereby he takes something valuable back to sell? There was a TV sitcom from Britain some years ago where the character walks through into wartime London which did the whole time travel thing much better, and this film reminds me of the series.
Also, Owen's character starts doing the whiney Woody Allen voice late in the film. We know Woody can't do these old bloke with a young woman roles any more but that's no reason to continue the whine when it's not Woody.
And what was the purpose of the old folks, the would-be in-laws? They did not serve the plot at all, apart from when Owen needs to escape from the hotel room.
And having Carla Bruni in with a speaking part is also a distraction as we are constantly reminded that, since she is the wife of the French president, Allen might have had better access to Parisian locations because of it.
Can't say I'll be viewing this DVD again.
But this one, hmmm, even though I was charmed by it throughout, it was the sort of charm described by Evelyn Waugh in Brideshead.
It begins with postcard/chocolate box pics of Paris that go on and on, and which we could do without.
And there's a rankle throughout. We see how Owen's character goes back in time, but we don't see how he gets back, and the difference between the 20s and late nineteenth century is just not marked enough.
And the biggest rankle is what does he do for money? It's bad enough suspending our disbelief when someone with long hair, an almost-beard an no tie is allowed into some of the best places in Paris of long ago. and nobody comments on his appearance. This guy should try being admitted into the Ritz in London even at breakfast time in 2011.
But no money? Couldn't there have been a plot device whereby he takes something valuable back to sell? There was a TV sitcom from Britain some years ago where the character walks through into wartime London which did the whole time travel thing much better, and this film reminds me of the series.
Also, Owen's character starts doing the whiney Woody Allen voice late in the film. We know Woody can't do these old bloke with a young woman roles any more but that's no reason to continue the whine when it's not Woody.
And what was the purpose of the old folks, the would-be in-laws? They did not serve the plot at all, apart from when Owen needs to escape from the hotel room.
And having Carla Bruni in with a speaking part is also a distraction as we are constantly reminded that, since she is the wife of the French president, Allen might have had better access to Parisian locations because of it.
Can't say I'll be viewing this DVD again.
Waste of a great opportunity for a sequel
26 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I give it 2 but sort of feel bad about it because at least Stone did make a sequel, but somehow I don't think his heart was in it.
I watched it last night on DVD for the second time; the first time I was totally confused by it, but thought I'd give it another go.
But it truly is a confusing, meandering film with a plot, dialogue and character motivation that is just so hard to follow (even if you could be bothered to care enough).
The original Wall Street was a truly great movie where the storyline, financial background and motivations worked so well. Even then, some of the financial jargon lost me, even though I am an MBA and have worked in finance. In this film, it just sounds like so much nonsense, and I find it hard to believe there were any real advisors from the markets on it.
And what a waste. 2008 was the greatest time to set the sequel in, even better than the pre-87 crash days of the first one. Then, even taxi drivers had share tips (and in the film even high-priced hookers were in the market), so it was obvious something had to crash and burn, but everyone was trapped by greed and the idea they might miss out. On the day of the 87 Crash, I was lucky I was holding no shares. I had been trading on account with money I didn't really have but had still been making a profit. That's how real Wall Street was for me.
Then along comes 2008 and people are not just buying shares when they know nothing about it, they are buying houses they can't afford. The film unsuccessfully deals with this by shots of Jake with his realtor mom, but she is trading in high value NY houses, not cardboard boxes in Detroit. But the film doesn't reflect this properly, being obscured by an irrelevant love affair with a weepy wimpy girlfriend who is Gekko's daughter.
The only good spots (possible spoiler) are Gekko's return to the confident old Gekko later in the film in London, however improbable the rise in his fortunes so quickly, and the return of the original realtor who sold Bud Fox his overpriced Manhattan apartment (which of course he sold at a loss, but which would be worth ten times what he paid for it now - middle class people in NYC are now living in Brooklyn, Manhattan is so expensive). I'd like to have seen more of her, and it was a pity they didn't use her instead of Jake's mom for the real estate collapse story. Oh, and the mobile phone scene when Gekko gets out of prison. it was that clip that made me think this would be a good, clever film.
Totally didn't understand the Graydon Carter thing, and the Bud Fox cameo could have been so much better and would have been better much earlier in the film. Indeed, why didn't they use him as a main character.
And as for Eli Wallach. Oh man.
I watched it last night on DVD for the second time; the first time I was totally confused by it, but thought I'd give it another go.
But it truly is a confusing, meandering film with a plot, dialogue and character motivation that is just so hard to follow (even if you could be bothered to care enough).
The original Wall Street was a truly great movie where the storyline, financial background and motivations worked so well. Even then, some of the financial jargon lost me, even though I am an MBA and have worked in finance. In this film, it just sounds like so much nonsense, and I find it hard to believe there were any real advisors from the markets on it.
And what a waste. 2008 was the greatest time to set the sequel in, even better than the pre-87 crash days of the first one. Then, even taxi drivers had share tips (and in the film even high-priced hookers were in the market), so it was obvious something had to crash and burn, but everyone was trapped by greed and the idea they might miss out. On the day of the 87 Crash, I was lucky I was holding no shares. I had been trading on account with money I didn't really have but had still been making a profit. That's how real Wall Street was for me.
Then along comes 2008 and people are not just buying shares when they know nothing about it, they are buying houses they can't afford. The film unsuccessfully deals with this by shots of Jake with his realtor mom, but she is trading in high value NY houses, not cardboard boxes in Detroit. But the film doesn't reflect this properly, being obscured by an irrelevant love affair with a weepy wimpy girlfriend who is Gekko's daughter.
The only good spots (possible spoiler) are Gekko's return to the confident old Gekko later in the film in London, however improbable the rise in his fortunes so quickly, and the return of the original realtor who sold Bud Fox his overpriced Manhattan apartment (which of course he sold at a loss, but which would be worth ten times what he paid for it now - middle class people in NYC are now living in Brooklyn, Manhattan is so expensive). I'd like to have seen more of her, and it was a pity they didn't use her instead of Jake's mom for the real estate collapse story. Oh, and the mobile phone scene when Gekko gets out of prison. it was that clip that made me think this would be a good, clever film.
Totally didn't understand the Graydon Carter thing, and the Bud Fox cameo could have been so much better and would have been better much earlier in the film. Indeed, why didn't they use him as a main character.
And as for Eli Wallach. Oh man.
The Tourist
(I) (2010)
Always good to watch yummy Jolie. Even in a terrible film.
23 March 2011
I have just finished watching this on DVD and did so in two or three sequences; it did not grab me enough to watch it all the way through.
I am glad it only cost me about $2 buy (that's what DVDs cost here) because I would have felt ripped off otherwise.
Angelina Jolie is so watchable I'll suffer any movie for her, but this is just such a bad film How could they waste Jolie, Depp, Timothy Dalton and Rufus Sewell, and Venice to create this rubbish? I have discovered this is a remake of a European film and lately I have learned that other films I have watched are remakes of Euro films. All I can say is that there must obviously be great movies made outside Hollywood.
And if you are going to relocate a movie made in mainland Europe, do not imagine there are British equivalents of the fiscal/tax police they have in Europe.
And if there were, the rank of the officer in charge played by Dalton to try and recoup almost £740m would be considerably above Chief Inspector. Anyone Dalton's age who was still a Chief Inspector would be considered a failure.
Anyway, always good to watch Jolie. Even in a terrible film.
I am glad it only cost me about $2 buy (that's what DVDs cost here) because I would have felt ripped off otherwise.
Angelina Jolie is so watchable I'll suffer any movie for her, but this is just such a bad film How could they waste Jolie, Depp, Timothy Dalton and Rufus Sewell, and Venice to create this rubbish? I have discovered this is a remake of a European film and lately I have learned that other films I have watched are remakes of Euro films. All I can say is that there must obviously be great movies made outside Hollywood.
And if you are going to relocate a movie made in mainland Europe, do not imagine there are British equivalents of the fiscal/tax police they have in Europe.
And if there were, the rank of the officer in charge played by Dalton to try and recoup almost £740m would be considerably above Chief Inspector. Anyone Dalton's age who was still a Chief Inspector would be considered a failure.
Anyway, always good to watch Jolie. Even in a terrible film.
The Brave One
(2007)
change the IMDb storyline; it's a spoiler
9 February 2011
I only just bought this DVD and was into it for only a few minutes, and I couldn't stand Jodie Foster's 'British' accent.
So I pressed pause to look up IMDb to see if he was really a Brit actor.
And so I couldn't help but read the storyline, which is a total spoiler.
Why warn about spoilers when you allow the storyline of a movie to tell us exactly what is about to happen after the establishing scenes of total happiness.
We know because of the total happiness beginning and the use of an unknown actor with Jodie Foster that the unknown actor will soon be literally out of the picture, but giving it away in the storyline is just, just too much.
Now I'll have to get through it somehow.
So I pressed pause to look up IMDb to see if he was really a Brit actor.
And so I couldn't help but read the storyline, which is a total spoiler.
Why warn about spoilers when you allow the storyline of a movie to tell us exactly what is about to happen after the establishing scenes of total happiness.
We know because of the total happiness beginning and the use of an unknown actor with Jodie Foster that the unknown actor will soon be literally out of the picture, but giving it away in the storyline is just, just too much.
Now I'll have to get through it somehow.
Lions for Lambs
(2007)
Redford as a gung-ho US imperialist
4 February 2011
This is such a terrible film on so many levels.
Redford comes across as a complete loon who has bought into the idea the 9/11 had something to do with Iraq/Afghanistan, and that what was a huge humiliation and major victory for a small band of people justifies the US military clodhopping all over the world, making things worse.
The entire military industrial complex that the US taxpayer pays through the nose for was set up to counter other militaries and especially another hi-tech superpower. To use it against small bands of low tech chaps who understandably don't like foreigners from thousands of miles away coming to Afghanistan (which should come as no surprise as they have reacted like this for centuries and never been defeated) is madness.
How Redford can make a film that seems to justify a totally dislocated and unnecessary response is beyond me. And the idea of some WASP university professor having served in 'Nam because of the draft it laughable. Ask George W.
Plus I don't like how his character dismisses the Taliban as 'medieval'. Medieval times in Europe were times of great enlightenment and civilisatiion. The fact that they way people live in Afghanistan hasn't changed for centuries is nothing to do with medievalism; it's to do with the fact that they are the way they are, in a country that has never been industrialised and never will be.
Should the Masai in Kenya be derided because they live the way they have done for a long, long time, and have no need or wish for McDonalds or VW Polos? American wars that have been won have always been about creating markets for American companies. Americans should not be fighting wars just to flex their military muscle.
And the fact that dimwit Robert Redford got it wrong - it was lions led by donkeys, not lambs, shows how stupid a film it is.
Can't even get the title right.
I won't even keep or pass on the DVD. It is going straight into the trash.
Redford comes across as a complete loon who has bought into the idea the 9/11 had something to do with Iraq/Afghanistan, and that what was a huge humiliation and major victory for a small band of people justifies the US military clodhopping all over the world, making things worse.
The entire military industrial complex that the US taxpayer pays through the nose for was set up to counter other militaries and especially another hi-tech superpower. To use it against small bands of low tech chaps who understandably don't like foreigners from thousands of miles away coming to Afghanistan (which should come as no surprise as they have reacted like this for centuries and never been defeated) is madness.
How Redford can make a film that seems to justify a totally dislocated and unnecessary response is beyond me. And the idea of some WASP university professor having served in 'Nam because of the draft it laughable. Ask George W.
Plus I don't like how his character dismisses the Taliban as 'medieval'. Medieval times in Europe were times of great enlightenment and civilisatiion. The fact that they way people live in Afghanistan hasn't changed for centuries is nothing to do with medievalism; it's to do with the fact that they are the way they are, in a country that has never been industrialised and never will be.
Should the Masai in Kenya be derided because they live the way they have done for a long, long time, and have no need or wish for McDonalds or VW Polos? American wars that have been won have always been about creating markets for American companies. Americans should not be fighting wars just to flex their military muscle.
And the fact that dimwit Robert Redford got it wrong - it was lions led by donkeys, not lambs, shows how stupid a film it is.
Can't even get the title right.
I won't even keep or pass on the DVD. It is going straight into the trash.
Hoffa
(1992)
When there is no hero, and no love story, why make the movie?
3 February 2011
I freely admit I have not even finished watching this movie on DVD before reviewing it.
I know what happened to Hoffa, so I haven't been gripping the edge of my seat. In fact, I have not been gripping it since I started to watch this in fits and starts since last night.
I have an excuse. I live in Tunis, where there is not much action, and the TV is terrible so I buy a lot of films on DVDs. If it's English and has a big name star, I'll buy it.
But what in the name of whatever was the reason for making this film? No one believes Hoffa was a saint. And they made up the deVito character. Hoffa's jibes at Bobby Kennedy, his uselessness and the family's history as rum-runners is good, but we knew that.
I like it that there can be films giving the other side to the dominance of capitalism in the States, but this does not do this.
Anyway, movies are meant to entertain, to move, to help you identify with a hero, to tell a story of success towards a goal, to show a great love story...If I had been watching this film in a cinema all the way back in the early 90s with even the best love object of my life, I would have said about 45 mins through, 'I'm off to the pub, luv', and I am sure she would have followed me.
I suppose in those days if you had Nicholson and Mamet, you had a success.
But no.
And if you'll excuse me, because it is raining very heavily outside and anyway it is close to curfew at 10pm because of our recent revolution, I will pour a very large whisky and cringe through however many minutes are left.
I know what happened to Hoffa, so I haven't been gripping the edge of my seat. In fact, I have not been gripping it since I started to watch this in fits and starts since last night.
I have an excuse. I live in Tunis, where there is not much action, and the TV is terrible so I buy a lot of films on DVDs. If it's English and has a big name star, I'll buy it.
But what in the name of whatever was the reason for making this film? No one believes Hoffa was a saint. And they made up the deVito character. Hoffa's jibes at Bobby Kennedy, his uselessness and the family's history as rum-runners is good, but we knew that.
I like it that there can be films giving the other side to the dominance of capitalism in the States, but this does not do this.
Anyway, movies are meant to entertain, to move, to help you identify with a hero, to tell a story of success towards a goal, to show a great love story...If I had been watching this film in a cinema all the way back in the early 90s with even the best love object of my life, I would have said about 45 mins through, 'I'm off to the pub, luv', and I am sure she would have followed me.
I suppose in those days if you had Nicholson and Mamet, you had a success.
But no.
And if you'll excuse me, because it is raining very heavily outside and anyway it is close to curfew at 10pm because of our recent revolution, I will pour a very large whisky and cringe through however many minutes are left.
There Will Be Blood
(2007)
If it is not biographical, who would believe in such a character?
20 January 2011
I have only just finished watching this tiresome movie over an extended period that began just after an early curfew last night here in Tunisia, which has just had civil unrest and unseated its greedy president (they didn't need the Americans to come in to do it for them, and so won't have them here to introduce 'democracy' by force of arms).
It is just awful. If it had been a biopic of some deranged, murderous, amoral, witless, purposeless man who had really existed then we could have watched the movie in awe that nature, society and the culture of greed could create such a beast, but no. The guy never existed and is not really based on anyone who lived, so what is the point? There is no tension in the movie, no real storyline, we don't care about the central character, or what happens to him.
How this was thought to be Oscar material tells you a lot about the Oscar process. Daniel Day-Lewis was a big name so perhaps that's why. But he is not a big name anymore; probably something to do with this worthless movie.
It is just awful. If it had been a biopic of some deranged, murderous, amoral, witless, purposeless man who had really existed then we could have watched the movie in awe that nature, society and the culture of greed could create such a beast, but no. The guy never existed and is not really based on anyone who lived, so what is the point? There is no tension in the movie, no real storyline, we don't care about the central character, or what happens to him.
How this was thought to be Oscar material tells you a lot about the Oscar process. Daniel Day-Lewis was a big name so perhaps that's why. But he is not a big name anymore; probably something to do with this worthless movie.
The Boat That Rocked
(2009)
Inaccurate, we know, but hypocritically so
18 December 2010
I wish I could give this a 0. The only thing that saves this absolutely awful film is the soundtrack.
The 'baddies' are the Kenneth Branagh character and his team. It is never revealed who exactly KB is meant to be - he comes across as a combination of a government minister and the BBC Director-General, but is certainly painted as an uptight, anally-retentive Tory type.
But the fact is that it was a Labour government that killed off pirate radio, and the minister responsible was the aristocratic but extreme left-wing Postmaster-General, Anthony Wedgwood Benn (formerly Lord Stansgate). He is now known as Tony Benn and still poses as a hard-line socialist.
But castigating a Labour government and attacking the BBC are not what the luvvie team of Richard Curtis, Kenneth Branagh, Emma Thompson et al do.
What is also odd about the movie is the number of black faces they include throughout, when there were not so many people of colour in Britain at the time. But the luvvies had dropped a clanger in Notting Hill, set in the Britain of the 1990s. Not one black face appeared in the film, Notting Hill, but in Notting Hill in London there are countless black British people.
Not is this film terribly scripted and plotted, it is far too long at almost two hours.
The 'baddies' are the Kenneth Branagh character and his team. It is never revealed who exactly KB is meant to be - he comes across as a combination of a government minister and the BBC Director-General, but is certainly painted as an uptight, anally-retentive Tory type.
But the fact is that it was a Labour government that killed off pirate radio, and the minister responsible was the aristocratic but extreme left-wing Postmaster-General, Anthony Wedgwood Benn (formerly Lord Stansgate). He is now known as Tony Benn and still poses as a hard-line socialist.
But castigating a Labour government and attacking the BBC are not what the luvvie team of Richard Curtis, Kenneth Branagh, Emma Thompson et al do.
What is also odd about the movie is the number of black faces they include throughout, when there were not so many people of colour in Britain at the time. But the luvvies had dropped a clanger in Notting Hill, set in the Britain of the 1990s. Not one black face appeared in the film, Notting Hill, but in Notting Hill in London there are countless black British people.
Not is this film terribly scripted and plotted, it is far too long at almost two hours.
Takers
(2010)
Absolutely awful
9 December 2010
I really don't know how I am going to make it to ten lines to make sure this review features. This movie is just breathtakingly awful, badly-made and incredibly boring despite all the action scenes and firepower. It reminded me during the opening scenes of The Town (masked bank robbers, feisty woman bank employee, well-executed and planned escape), but even thought I gave The Town a 4, this just doesn't register on the scale.
The Town suffered from lack of any reason for empathy with any of the characters but at least it had a good-looking woman among the cast, Rebecca Hall.
There is no tension, there is no classic three-act story line, we don't care about this bunch of violent, greedy crooks, and we care even less when yet another bunch of even more violent and greedier crooks come along later.
Have as many car chases, shoot-outs as you like, you won't make a good movie.
Sad to see the grown-up Matt Dillon. He plays a cop here, but he looks more like a thug and criminal than the real ones.
Well, I got to more than ten lines.
Worst film I think I have seen, ever.
The Town suffered from lack of any reason for empathy with any of the characters but at least it had a good-looking woman among the cast, Rebecca Hall.
There is no tension, there is no classic three-act story line, we don't care about this bunch of violent, greedy crooks, and we care even less when yet another bunch of even more violent and greedier crooks come along later.
Have as many car chases, shoot-outs as you like, you won't make a good movie.
Sad to see the grown-up Matt Dillon. He plays a cop here, but he looks more like a thug and criminal than the real ones.
Well, I got to more than ten lines.
Worst film I think I have seen, ever.
The Town
(2010)
Good in parts, but characters don't ring true
5 December 2010
Thank the Lord Ben Affleck wasn't allowed to make the four hour cut. It's too long as it is. But this means the drastic cut makes the plot-line jumpy, and one presumes it has shortened character development.
No-one could seriously care about, or identify with, any of the characters, either the cops, the robbers or the Rebecca Hall character, and so the movie falls down at the most basic level.
The bank robbery and car chase sequences are enjoyable, but then again so what. Most robbery and chase scenes tend to be so, but that doesn't make it worth two hours of your time or money.
There can be absolutely no comparison to the French Connection, as some people here make. Doyle and his sidekick were driven, dedicated cops against the harm done by Charnier and his heroin traders.
But nobody could care less about the banks who are robbed (especially nowadays, so the special agent played by John Hamm may as well be a bank collection agent for all we care. The point is made more than once in the film, when they say things along the lines of 'it's not your money, don't be a hero'.
And the criminal characters live such crappy lives, you wonder what they do with all the money. At least in the Sopranos, Tony lives in a big, comfortable house, and his wife has lots of expensive jewellery and high-end vehicles, though of course his family lacks the respectability that property level, which is why is wife is so unhappy.
Here, these guys just live in grim apartments and drink in down at heel neighbourhood bars, so what's the point of taking the risk that you'll end up in jail for the rest of your life? And none of them seem to have any identifiably different personality from the others, apart from the psycho Florist, played as an Ulsterman by Peter Poslethwaite.
And a young bank manager would never in the world associate with the Affleck's working class character, even in America.
I think this film will sink without trace. Seems to me Affleck was over-indulged by the studio.
No-one could seriously care about, or identify with, any of the characters, either the cops, the robbers or the Rebecca Hall character, and so the movie falls down at the most basic level.
The bank robbery and car chase sequences are enjoyable, but then again so what. Most robbery and chase scenes tend to be so, but that doesn't make it worth two hours of your time or money.
There can be absolutely no comparison to the French Connection, as some people here make. Doyle and his sidekick were driven, dedicated cops against the harm done by Charnier and his heroin traders.
But nobody could care less about the banks who are robbed (especially nowadays, so the special agent played by John Hamm may as well be a bank collection agent for all we care. The point is made more than once in the film, when they say things along the lines of 'it's not your money, don't be a hero'.
And the criminal characters live such crappy lives, you wonder what they do with all the money. At least in the Sopranos, Tony lives in a big, comfortable house, and his wife has lots of expensive jewellery and high-end vehicles, though of course his family lacks the respectability that property level, which is why is wife is so unhappy.
Here, these guys just live in grim apartments and drink in down at heel neighbourhood bars, so what's the point of taking the risk that you'll end up in jail for the rest of your life? And none of them seem to have any identifiably different personality from the others, apart from the psycho Florist, played as an Ulsterman by Peter Poslethwaite.
And a young bank manager would never in the world associate with the Affleck's working class character, even in America.
I think this film will sink without trace. Seems to me Affleck was over-indulged by the studio.
Tell Your Friends