Reviews

As the tagline says, this really gave me Notting Hill vibes when I was watching it. Unfortunately it didn't come close to it though.

The story had a lot of similarities. Famous person meets average, regular person (at the shortest band meet and greet ever in history!) and attempts a relationship which does not go well. The addition of the daughter brought a different dynamic ... but I think it was a mistake to have the large age gap. Some of it did feel a little bit icky and validated a lot of the backlash that was displayed in the movie - but maybe that's just me and my problem.

It was an average movie that gets extra marks for having Anne Hathaway in it. :)

69/100.

Saw this at the movies and enjoyed it.

Adri was disappointed that it wasn't Lee Majors but then I pointed out that he was about 80 years old and she saw the error. It was great to see him at the end in the cameo though. Apparently he was also with his co-star (Heather Thomas) ... who looked like she'd had waaaay too much work done.

As for the film itself. Wow there was a lot of action. Some of it was good and some of it was not. I felt like they were trying a bit too hard at times .... but then it is a film about stunts and stuntmen.

The story itself is ridiculous, of course. It could have been taken from an episode of the original series it's so silly. Good fun though.

I nitpicked about the fact that Colt just turns up on set and walks into a car to perform a really dangerous stunt - without the weeks if not months of planning required. Adri was shocked that was what I thought was unbelievable about the film. Touche Adri.

61/100.

I so wanted to like this.

The original is a modern classic and I love Erica Durance from my Smallville re-watch ... but this "sequel" sullies the name of the original film.

For a start ... why is it "Butterfly Effect 2" in the first place? It has none of the original cast and bears little resemblance to the first film. Where are the blackouts, for example? Everything seems to be done so differently!

I read that this went straight to DVD and it feels exactly like that kind of movie. The direction is bad and overall it just seems a bit amature-ish.

Nick - the main character - was an idiot. It seemed so easy to me to correct his wrong-doings and have his perfect life ... but the film chose not to. The jumps back made little sense.

On the plus side, it was only 90 minutes long. And Erica was in it so extra points for that.

23/100.

Next in line for my Stephen King book watch is one I was quite looking forward to. I was fearful when I saw the short runtime and it tuns out the fears were justified.

The adaptation follows the book reasonably faithfully. The start is different, Tom's background is different, some characters are different and ... of course ... a lot of details are left out. I wonder if I'd have thought it was a better film if I hadn't read the book?

The effects are good. The acting is good ... with the material they have to work with, which is a bit cheesy.

The biggest complaint is the ending - which seems to give the viewer a choice of endings? Maybe? Did he blow it up or is he imagining that he blew it up? I don't know ... hence the low score.

37/100.

This is another in the list of time-travel films that you should watch that I found a while back on the old interweb. I found that it appeared on Amazon so gave it a go with perrin one evening.

We both enjoyed it ... but both found that it was waaaaay too confusing to be truly enjoyable.

The film starts out well with a few funny moments that made me at least snigger out loud. The nerdy guy comes across well - as does his girlfriend. Curious that these two make up 2/3 of the total cast in what is obviously a very low-budget affair.

It's when they start running into multiple versions of themselves that things go off the rails a bit. It's an interesting notion but I/we felt that there wasn't enough in the way of clues or explanation and most of the time you weren't sure who was talking to which version of who.

There werre a couple of good reveals towards the end ... but not enough to rescue the film overall.

57/100.

This is the next up in the 1000 films to watch before you shuffle off to heaven (or hell).

What a sweet and lovely film it is too ... although afterwards I couldn't help wondering how this was pitched. "I've got an idea for a film about this idiot ...".

Tom Hanks is perfect in the role and is very deserving of his Oscar. The supporting cast are great too - although there aren't that many of them.

The only bit that I didn't like was the post-Vietnam protesty bit. Also, Jenny was such a bee-atch to Forrest. She didn't come across well to me at all so she got what she deserved.

Great film though. Very re-watchable.

85/100.

I love me some Jake so I was looking forward to this movie dropping on Prime. After watching it, it seems the universe has played a cruel joke.

Jake does ok ... let's start with that. He obviously put a lot into this role and his performance stands out. It's just a shame about what he had to work with.

The story is an off the shelf baddie drug lord etc etc etc. The script is pretty bad with some real mature cheese asides thrown in for what I assume is some comedic effect.

The acting aside from Jake is pretty bad too. And Connor MacGregor takes you so far out of the movie with his stupid grinning face and his walking like he's just filled his pants. What on earth was Doug Liman thinking with these directorial choices?!?

It was always risky to remake a classic movie such as Swayze's original. It had style, charm and much better characters and story. This is a very poor knock-off and only goes to emphasise how good the original was/is.

46/100.

I watched this again almost 40 years after I remember watching it for the first time with an old girlfriend while babysitting her little sister. Great times.

It's got the feel of an old TV movie but we rented it from the local shop (next to Lindsey's hairdresser's) .... which had recently started to rent out VHS movies. Great times.

The film itself is incredibly cheesy and looks to have been made on a shoestring budget ... but I love it. The twist at the end - which is hardly a twist because it can be seen coming from as soon as it's set up - is terrific, regardless.

I was interested to find out that the lead actress was also Stringfellow Hawke's love interest in the Airwolf pilot - another defining show from my teens.

Not as much fun second time round but a joy to watch again. Really takes me back.

90/100.

The latest entry from the 1000 films to see before you ain't seeing no more has this classic from the 90's.

I don't think I've seen it since the 90's so me, Indy and Adri all sat down to watch. I really liked it. Indy really liked it. Adri slept through large chunks ... natch.

The story is great. The characters are great .... even though Thelma does get really ditsy a little too often for the story's own good. It's a detriment to her that's she's portrayed as having only half a brain at times. Also, men in general do not fare well at all - which is a bit 'in your face'.

I'd forgotten that there are some genuine comedic moments, which were great. And Brad Pitt's role gave no indication of the megastar that he was going to become.

The scenery is jaw-dropping and took me back to our travels round the southwest. So amazing.

Indy and I were discussing that even if you haven't seen this movie ... *everyone* knows the ending.

83/100.

A 1980's entry from the list of 1000 films to see while you're still able to see them ... and wow does it look and feel like the 80's!!

Firstly, the quality is really bad. At multiple points I couldn't make out what people were saying because there were stupid rock 'n' roll songs playing in the background and the sound mix was awful.

Secondly, it's like they went overboard to fully embrace the clothes and hairstyles of the early 80's. Just wow.

The film itself is an exercise in navel-gazing. A bunch of friends meet up again after years at a mutual friend's suicide and moan about stuff. Then - at the end - there's consensual surrogate husbandry. Totally weird.

Despite the excellent cast this was a bit of a struggle to get through.

45/100.

This is the next 1970s entry in the 1000 films to see before popping your clogs and it's a lot more understated than I remember from years back.

I had it in my head that there were a lot more than 2 mountain men baddies and a lot more action. Instead, there's a fair amount of canoeing and paddling sequences.

I also thought that Burt Reynolds was the main character ... but he spends most of the film unconscious with a (really nasty looking) broken leg. In my mind everyone was killed apart from him! Maybe i was thinking of a different film entirely.

And I forgot that John Boorman directed it and that Charlie played the young boy at the end! Cool!

It's a creepy film and - don't take this the wrong way, mountain folk - but it's not hard to imagine this actually happening in real life.

74/100.

Next up in the 1000 films to see before you sleep for good list and my what a great film. A real classic western.

Two legends together for the first time - although I still don't really see what everyone else sees/saw in John Wayne.

This film is impeccably filmed in terms of sets, scenery and the use of light. I wondered at the start why it was black and white - given that it came out in 1962 - but the use of shadows etc I just don't think could be pulled off otherwise.

The story is fabulous ... although there is a bit of a lull towards the end after Vallance is killed when statehood and politics rear their head.

Lee Marvin really goes to town with the evil baddie tropes.

The twist at the end is a corker ... although as a completist, my only regret is not finding out what killed Tom. Not important to the story, I'm sure but a little more of what happened to him in later life would have been nice.

86/100.

Sheez I was really looking forward to this film. It had Marty and Leo and Bobby .... and I'm a sucker for a good Indian story. However ...

The story shuffles along at an absolute snail's pace. I could just never get interested or invested in it at all. The Osage are incredibly sympathetic characters but the way the film depicts them almost suggests that they weren't exactly helping themselves out. One of them even actually addresses this in the film by saying that they all marry white men now.

The film's getting a lot of Oscar love this year but I reckon that's all based on reputation. Not a great film.

27/100.

This is another film from the 1000 films to see before you shuffle off this mortal coil list .... and I'm not really very sure why.

It's a good story .... with a few eye-rolling moments - like when our hero is found in the barn holding not one but TWO guns and no-one left alive to say what happened. How inconvenient.

The - as far as I can tell - utterly unknown cast do a good job. It's quite fascinating how the town is 100% in support of our hero at the start of the film and then how quickly they turn against him.

It's a short movie and the ending is quite abrupt. We don't get to see what our hero does after he is reprieved and the town say "sorry".

So a good movie ... but really one of the top 1000 ever?

73/100.

I was looking forward to this movie .... although I was a little trepadacious that it was going to be a 'critics' film. I think my fears were justified.

It's a very slow-moving story that I yawned through much of the time. The performance from Paul Giamatti is excellent ... but the others are just so-so to me.

The scenery is great and it does capture the vibe of that time.

The biggest issue that I had is that the growing bond and relationship that supposedly developed between teacher and pupil - who we all thought looked closer to 30 than 20, by the way - just didn't hit for me. I just didn't think that it was that well developed throughout the film so by the end of the film I didn't believe or buy it.

63/100.

I don't get it.

My theory is that all these brilliant scores on Rotten Tomatoes and imdb are left by either a) critics or b) pretentious people .... fully realising that a great many critics are also pretentious people, but you know what I mean.

Much of this movie made little sense to me - or Indy, who was watching it for her International Cinema course - despite the synopsis sounding quite simple and interesting. Even knowing what the film was ultimately about didn't really help decipher what was going on.

I have to say that the highlight for me was seeing a very young Max Von Sydow. That just about sums it up.

Utterly forgettable. Only marked so highly because it was in Swedish - which I have a soft spot for - and so mildly interesting for that.

21/100.

So that's what Lana Turner looked like. I don't think I've ever seen her in a movie before.

Another instalment in the 1000 films to see before you shuffle off and this one was a good one. Given the age of the film I was quite surprised at the level of performance - especially from Turner, who I always imagined was just eye candy with little talent.

The story is good. I've never read the book but it was engaging and I imagine quite daring for the 1940's. Couldn't help feeling sorry for the very likeable old guy.

A lot of familiar faces in the cast, which was cool. This era of film surely was one of the very best ... they're just such a pleasure to relax with.

69/100.

Saw George Mackay on Graham promoting this some time ago and have been waiting for it to become available. It dropped this week on Netflix so I was really looking forward to seeing it. Sheez ... what a disappointment.

From the interview / chat I imagined that it was a revenge story. It's not ... but I'm not sure what it actually is. He clocks Preston in the gay place and then for some reason decides to strike up a relationship with him - even though he's a detestable excuse for a person. Ok, he kind of comes round a bit but still ... what's the endgame here?

The performances are good but it's the story arc that really lets this down. A very uncomfortable and baffling watch with no conclusion or redemption ... so generally just extremely unsatisfying.

37/100.

This is quite the departure for Mark Wahlberg, I believe ... since I don't remember seeing him in such a dramatic role. That in itself made me curious enough to see the film that I also believed would be a really interesting biopic.

Having watched it, Wahlberg was very good ... although I do think that he was overplaying the 'I'm a total dick' persona a bit. Mel Gibson was excellent, as always ... as was the woman that I thought was Beverley De'Angolo, Jacki Weaver. I like to think that Stuart brought them back together at the end of the movie but this isn't made clear.

The film's religious aspects were too much for me - but then what did I expect. I just think they really overdid it with the scripture and preachy talk.

I looked up Stuart Long afterwards and - as I always suspect - the film takes a fair amount of liberty with his true story ... with large important parts of it left out.

53/100.

This movie is one of the earliest in my list from the movies you have to see before you die list ... and it could be one of the best.

The film has great, great scenery - even in black and white - and really good character acting as well. Nice to see Uncle Billy as the drunken doctor who makes amends for himself! It always amazes me that John Wayne became such a huge star though. He's not very good.

If you recognise The Mittens you can easily spot that they appear throughout the film and make a bit of a mockery of the sequencing. This surprised me given John Ford's legendary status cos it seems like such a basic error.

The story is a great romp with interesting characters and action. I didn't really 'get' the ending though. Curly seems to just let Ringo go off and kill the three brothers ... then when he meets up with him again he just lets him go?! Without a word of explanation. Weird lawmaking in the Wild West.

81/100.

What a really interesting and inspiring story ... or is it?

The leads in this are great ... although something in me sees Jodie's lack of acting in recent years. Her performance didn't seem to be on her usual level. Rhys Ifans ... who has a big, important role in the movie but for some reason is miles and miles down the cast list on imdb ... is also very good.

This woman's drive and resolve is staggering. To make one attempt at this is phenomenal ... never mind five!!

As with all "true" stories ... I again found myself wondering - how much is true. Some quick searching later and it seems that it's pretty much correct - but ... I read that the validity of the last swim is in question due to some dodgy reports and logging and that it's not actually been recognised. Some claim that she was resting on a boat, for example.

This unfortunately throws some doubt and shade on what was otherwise a really great story.

77/100.

I'm not sure what the gripe is with this film. Ok, it's not the best ... but it's a country mile better than some of the Sony films we've had of late, for example. DC films all get a really bad rep and I'm not exactly sure why. I think I've liked pretty much all of them ... with the possible exception of Shazam II. Maybe it's me but part of me things it's just expected habit to crap on DC movies.

Anyway ... on the negative side, the CGI was definitely overdone and it was ropey in parts ... and some of the dialogue was not so great. The requisite slo-mo "hero" shots made me groan a bit as well.

Having said that, I was really expecting the worst and I was pleasantly surprised by the story and the characters.

Well done, DC.

71/100.

This is the next movie in the 'great time-travel movie' list that I put together from the interweb and P and I watched it with some Indian take-out. Yum.

The movie starts out really pretty well - although I was wondering at one point when the time-travel would eventually start. It took a while to build up to it.

When it did it was still going well ... until it didn't. They successfully sent a toy car back 2 hours (aiming for 1 minute) and it ended up half in a wall. So of course then the eye-candy - suitably impressed - suggests that the very next attempt should be with 'the gang' ... and they agree!!

All goes well, thankfully, until things start to change by their messing about at Lullapalooza and David starts to jump around by himself trying to correct things. Not very original and quickly gets annoying because the sensible guy just suddenly starts acting completely illogically. All over some girl.

All the hand-held camera gets a little wearing after a while too.

The plot holes are big enough to drive a tank through - see ThisIsBarry for a good read. Even still though, it was entertaining ... spoiled a bit by the second half and then realising all the glaring (not to us!) plot holes.

47/100.

This film is truly and spectacularly offensive in so many ways. Apart from just the general insult to the viewer's intelligence, it tries soooo hard to be the next edgy and shocking comedy in the style of Superbad and the like. The trouble is that it just overshoots the mark and Perrin and I were pretty much completely turned off the film within the first 5 or 10 minutes with the over-the-top offensive language and behaviour.

It doesn't improve from there either. The story is stupid. The sheer neglect of teachers to the violence in the movie is utterly ridiculous. There's not even a chuckle raised in this so-called comedy.

The less said about it the better ... but I was surprised to read afterwards that Marshawn Lynch played the teacher. His performance was pretty bad - as you would expect - but then all the performances were bad so ....

07/100.

First off .... I had no idea that that was Dua Lipa in the opening scene!

I didn't realise that this would be linked to the Kingsman universe at all but with Matthew Vaughn as director it comes as no surprise, i suppose. It's only at the end that the tie-in appears briefly but it opens the door for future cross-overs, I think.

The action is absolutely bonkers. Laugh out loud ridiculous at times ... but in the bestest way possible. It's just crazy.

BDH is an odd choice for the author / ex-highly trained spy. She's great but , how do I put this without offending anyone, she's a bit ... let's say ... heavy.

Sam Rockwell is enormously great fun. I love him in everything and he's clearly having an absolute blast in this film. Loved Archie the cat as well. :)

I do think it was stretched a bit long. I kept thinking it was climaxing but then they'd tack on another outrageous twist or reveal and we'd carry on from there.

The story itself is initially utterly stupid ... but then it's saved by the reveal that she's just writing about her past experience. Very cleverly done but up until that point it seems just daft that this author is predicting everything in great detail.

The end is confusing when Henry Cavill appears with long hair suggesting that he can answer some questions. Not sure what that's all about. Overall just great fun though!

86/100.