Reviews

4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
JFK (1991)
10/10
Truth?
17 January 2007
JFK is quite simply a stunning movie but factually is so full of falsehoods and dramatic/artistic license it could never be called the truth.

Check out Donahue's research to debunk practically every conspiracy theory in existence.

Fantastic movie though and a brilliant cast. Remember how good Costner can be.

Oliver Stone uses every trick he knows to make you want to believe in a conspiracy and has actually done a lot of damage to public perception of the facts. To be fair he readily admits this.
2 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dracula (2006 TV Movie)
1/10
Oh dear...
17 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Firstly let's forget about all the deviations from the source novel. You can after all 'reimagine' a story and produce a great film (Hills Have Eyes for example).

The truth is the story was weak, the acting veered from hammy to indifferent, the script was full of cliché and while some undeniable talents appeared in the cast (Suchet, Myles, Warren) they seem to have left all incentive to perform at home. Marc Warren had no screen presence and came across as a pretentious and over serious goth. Being goth in itself is no crime but being pretentious with it is. If you are a goth you are NOT a vampire. Get over it.

The supposed sexy scenes were about as erotic as gouging your eyes out with a spoon and a surefire way to promote celibacy. The ending was rushed and anticlimactic leaving the viewer feeling deflated and frustrated.

On the plus side the costumes, set design and music were all of the high standards we expect from the BBC.

Overall VERY disappointing.

Mar
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Testament (1983)
7/10
Emotional vacuum
22 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Firtsly let me say I think this is a fine movie. The acting is first class especially Jane Alexander & Lucas Haas. The basic premise of what happens to those who aren't caught up in the blast is also commendable, and I will say that the film does some moments of genuine impact as well as being thought-provoking. But, I cannot believe some of the comments on this site about how the film has left them emotionally drained and in floods of tears. I say this as a father of two young children I found it to be a little too glossy. The film doesn't show any of the true horrors of watching your children slowly die from radiation sickness as you continue to look after them. On only one occasion do we get any sign of illness from any of the children (Lucas Haas). His bathtime scene is one of the better moments (along with his funeral & Costner carrying the drawer). What simply happens is the daughter just isn't alive one day. No warning. One day comfortably playing the piano, next day wrapped in a blanket. Where's the horror in that? I found it impossible to gain any emotional impact from this. Jane Alexander does her best to give the film an emotional core, as does director Lynne Littman, but it just didn't work for me. Also some of the script is clichéd and far too close to soap opera material at times. The continued use of home video clips was somewhat heavy handed in places. We know what has been lost as the first 1/3 of the film shows us. Some of that made me cringe slightly.

I feel this film will have far more impact on a U.S. audience as like 'The Day After' this film shys away from showing any gritty reality and instead opts for a sanitised and TV friendly feel which tends to be easier acceptable to mainstream audiences in the U.S.A. whereas the British made films like 1963's 'The War Game' and 1985's 'Threads' are much darker affairs are are done deliberately in a documentary style to avoid allegations of emotional manipulation. They simply say: this is how it would be. 'Threads' itself is the single most disturbing thing (not just film) I have ever experienced. It is unflinching, gritty, repulsive and genuinely nightmarish. Watch, but don't watch it alone. As for 'Testament' a good movie, a well intentioned movie and a must see film for all those interested in this genre but not the best. Incidentally my wife's opinion is even lower than mine on this film and originally I thought it was because of the films feminine feel that I didn't connect, but I don't believe that to be the case.
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Day After (1983 TV Movie)
Birdsong
30 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Nitpicking I know but how could they leave birdsong in during the scene when Steve Guttenberg goes "up top" to rescue the girl?!!! Oh and Threads is far more frightening and more like a documentary than the soap opera that is 'The day after', good tho' it is. With regards to the 'who fired first?' question, the film deliberately remains ambiguous on this matter because it's point is IT DOESN'T MATTER! If the USSR had fired first NATO would still respond with a full strike and vice versa. The effect is the same.The point is once events escalate beyond dialogue and one side is forced into a corner the button is pushed. Who does the pressing makes no difference. Could still happen, that's what is the most frightening thing.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed