Reviews

I was a young guy when Wham took off, and the George Michaels solo career followed.

This documentary tells the George Michaels journey from would be pop star into a well respected and extremely talented solo performer.

George starts off his musical career as a teenager full of hopes of conquering the world of pop music. Along with his best friend Andrew Ridgeley, Wham is formed and they explode onto the scene. Slowly but surely the star quality of George starts to burn bright.

Over the years, George turns from a bright eyed enthusiastic pop star into a cynical performer, who seems to be at odds against himself as a reluctant celebrity under the scrutiny of the media. There are insights into his family life and partners.

The story telling is relevant and good in this documentary. They could have touched more on his relationship with Andrew Ridgeley, and also his death was never clearly discussed.

I liked the Wham documentary better, but this is still good, particularly if your a George Michael fan.

A few years after the first Meg adventure, some of the old characters are back with a few new characters.

Jonas Taylor (Jason Stratham) is out saving the ocean from nasty polluters. Then Jonas is called into action to go deep into the ocean. Jonas leads a team deep into a trench on the bottom of the ocean floor. While exploring the trench they find out someone is taking valuable minerals from the ocean. They soon learn they have been double crossed! Every now and then a meg shark is spotted, you kind of wonder is this film about megs or not?.

After some close calls Jonas and team end up at a holiday resort island, fighting some baddies that double crossed them. Also the megs come into the film a bit more, with some other nasty creatures from the depths of the ocean.

The story telling in Meg 2 is mostly boring. Its not really worth mentioning any of the other characters as they are bland and forgettable. The first Meg was good fun, Meg 2 lumbers along and is cheesy/tacky.

Two young drifters Tex and Alby get into a bit of trouble at the carnival they work at. No problems they chuck their jobs in and head off looking for an adventure. That's kind of the way Australia was like back in the mid - late 1970's carefree for young people. The movie then becomes a road movie.

Tex is a loud and quick talking American looking for fun and love. Alby an Aussie is the more silent one, he can fight and likes a good time too.

In their travels, Tex and Alby become the accidental owners of a beautiful green Corvette Stingray car . The car has hidden in it money, a pistol and bags of marijuana. The boys feel like they have hit the jackpot and head off the Surfers Paradise to party. The real owner of the car, money, dope is far from happy.

Tex and Ably give a lift to a young girl who is lost in life, and she goes along for the ride with Tex and Alby. Both guys take care of the young girl as best they can.

When they get to Surfers Paradise the fun and dramas start. After all the mayhem in Surfers Paradise, Tex and Alby think it might be a good idea to rob a coach bus? This causes even more complications.

High Rolling doesn't make any wonderful stands or statements. Its just a fun road movie set in Australia in 1977. There are quite a few young Aussie actors in bit parts scattered throughout the movie, some go onto bigger and better roles!

Nobody Speak starts off interestingly enough. Terry Bollea is filmed privately in a compromising position. A gossip website pretending to be a news service gets hold of the footage and posts it online. The question is should have they posted the footage? The lines are blurred between the privacy of Terry Bollea and his well known alter ego pro wrestler Hulk Hogan. As the case unfolds people are held accountable for their actions. The documentary then takes a left turn and heads off in a woke direction.

Members of the media are upset that some people in very powerful positions have the power to control news services to a degree. The powerful people appear to want to hold some media outlets accountable for fabricating stories and not telling the whole story. Its hard to feel sorry for the media, as it has lost a lot of integrity and honesty over the years.

50 years ago the media more often reported the facts and the truth as close as possible.

But over the years money and political favors have become far more important to the media then reporting the actual truth and facts.

An engineer of sorts takes his family to work with him. His work place is inspecting an oil rig in the ocean.

The oil rig and town that is it near it, appears to be cursed.

It seems the people in the small seaside town are not fond of anyone who works for the oil companies head office, that owns the oil rig. Telling this story takes up the first part of the movie.

In the second part the engineer and his family arrive on the old rig to meet two survivors. You might ask survivors of what? They have survived a curse and a huge shark.

The 3rd part of the movie see's the engineer trying to right the wrongs of the oil companies past.

This is the worst shark movie I have seen. The characters are bland, the story is boring and there is far more talking than action. Its a slow paced movie, with the shark playing a minor role.

For many years, I had read lots of really positive things about the 1984 Spinal Tap movie. Somehow I had never taken the time to watch it. From what I had read over the years, it was mockumentary kind of thing about an English rock band.

So I have finally watched it!

This is Spinal Tap is about an English band (Spinal Tap of course) who do an ill fated tour of America. A struggling filmmaker follows along with Spinal Tap to do a documentary of their tour. Things start off ok, but the band goes on to have all sorts of problems from misunderstanding's within the band, not being able to find the stage and the cover of their new album. This leads to some in fighting and eventually a new direction. But all is not lost! The lead characters are likeable in an empty headed way. In the support cast there are a lot of people who go on to become well known. There are some funny lines and situations, but for the most part its predictable and you can see what's coming next.

I was disappointed after I watched This is Spinal Tap. I don't know why, maybe all the build up over the years? But I didn't think it was a masterpiece or even that good. For me it was an average comedy made back in the 1980's. Perhaps if I saw it 30 plus years earlier it might have been different?

I kind of had some high hopes for He Died with a Felafel in His Hand. I had read some positives things about it. I like quirky and off-beat movies. However I felt let down with this movie.

The story is, Danny bounces around from one flat share to another and meets some strange people. That's basically it... Noah Taylor has the lead role as Danny, a boring would be writer. Sophie Lee is in the movie as well and plays her character again from the much better film, Muriel's Wedding. The rest of the cast and their characters are easily forgettable.

There was some poor pronunciation/mumbling from some actors, and this made it difficult to understand exactly what they were saying.

An obvious attempt at being a Shawshank Redemption type of movie, but it fails miserably.

The movie focus on the very unlikely friendship of Earl Copen (Willem Dafoe) a hardened inmate and new young inmate Ron Decker (Edward Furlong). Earl slowly gains Ron's trust, and Earl teaches Ron all the do's and don'ts of prison life. One of the things that lets this film down, is Earl Copen (Willem Dafoe) and Ron Decker (Edward Furlong) have zero chemistry. The movie runs for 1 hour 34 minutes, but it feels like it goes for 2 hours and 30 minutes

There are a few well known actors in this picture, kind of fun picking them out. The story plods along with two or three high spots of action.

The main character Cain Burgess (Scott Adkins) has become a violent criminal and a fighting machine. He is seeking revenge against those who did him wrong. Cain Burgess needs some money to start up a business, so Cain takes on a dodgy "job" to earn some cash, however it has disastrous results for him.

The story is told in flashback sequences, which manages to hold the story together pretty well. There is an average/ decent plot in this movie with a few obvious twists and turns. The fighting scenes are frequent, maybe too frequent and violent. As the movie travels along Cain manages to beat up a small battalion of assorted thugs, kind of like a Bruce Lee film.

Scott Adkins in someway resembles Adam Sandler, which makes it hard to focus on the psycho character at times!

This film sits on a very fine line, between being a decent film or a silly film?

Mum, dad and two teenage kids re-start life in a small desolate Australian country town. None of them appear to be happy in their new surroundings. As the story slowly unfolds, each member of the family has personal issues to battle. Each of them try to overcome their problems in different ways. The father is very intense and protective of his families secrets. The children are bored and get lost in day to day life, and pretty much the same with the unstable mum.

There are no characters who are overly interesting or likeable. The movie crawls along at a mundane pace telling the story in a bland fashion. There is an emptiness to this movie, which feels like "somethings" have been left out.

How did Nicole Kidman and Hugo Weaving ever get mixed up in this boring mess?

An interesting Australian crime story focusing on tragic events from the 1970's. Its told in a documentary format over 5 episodes. Hosted by Debi Marshall a journalist, who has suffered her own personal tragedy years earlier. Debi becomes a bit self indulgent at times, and takes the heat away from the main subject matter. If Debi goes on a fact finding trip, it seems its more about Debi going on a trip then the reason why. A few interviews it becomes more about Debi, than the interviewee. The actual story revolves around a young drifter who becomes friends with a prominent professional person. Their friendship leads to a significant crime event. Debi retells the the story from years gone by, and she try's to piece together what actually happened. Often Debi is confronted by conflicting statements and dodgy evidence. There are some shady characters for Debi to try and decipher. It slowly appears to be a crime story within a crime story.

The biggest problem with this documentary is it is done in 5 episodes. At times it seems to go over and over the same subject matter. It often builds up to a climax, then fizzes out. It would have been better if the documentary was done over 2 or possibly 3 episodes.

Burn After Reading (2008) is a difficult movie to explain within a few lines. Short version - A CD falls into the hands of the wrong person, who see's it as a way to make some money. This sets off a series of events with blackmail, CIA, Russians, cosmetic surgery, cheating on partners, divorce and a gym. The plot has lots of twists and turns, the acting is good. Brad Pitt is a lot of fun as a dumb gym instructor. George Clooney plays the self centred lothario type very well. The story somehow all fits together. The ending while it is mildly amusing, is a bit of a let down. Made by the by Coen brothers, its a similar style to some of the other Coen brothers films.

Father Troy and his adult son Jake live a very isolated life deep inside the frozen countryside. They live this way to stay well away from the dangerous world outside. The father warns the son, constantly about the dangers of the outside world and all the evil people within it.

Father Troy suffers an injury protecting their homestead. Jake the son goes off to find urgent medical supplies. During his journey to find medical supplies, Jake meets a person. The interaction with the person is very different to what Jake expects. This meeting confuses Jake and he questions his fathers teachings. Jakes life is thrown into turmoil and he doesn't know who or what to believe.

This movie might just does enough to keep the viewer mildly interested, but it certainly reaches no great heights.

It might be tagged, but in no way is this a Sci-Fi movie.

Show's how the world and human race has not properly evolved from 1969 onwards.

By 1999 the devolution of mankind was well in motion.

Sometimes things can turn out great with little planning. Then things can be meticulously planned and great targets set, all to fail.

More drama than horror, but both are delivered well below average.

Two former baseball players travel aimlessly around he country side, trying to avoid zombies. One baseball player is gung ho and the other one is sensitive. A large portion of the film, lazily takes place in the back of a station wagon.

The movie is tedious, slow and mostly boring. The two lead characters individually have zero charisma, and there is no chemistry between the two.

The film was shot in 15 days and cost $6,000 to make. Say no more.

This Spider-Man movie sticks proudly close to the comic book tale. The actors portraying the characters fit their roles well, and are what you might expect to see in the roles.

The nerdy and weak teenage Peter Parker is bitten by a radioactive spider. He gets ill for a period of time. Once back on his feet, he has never felt better in his whole life. Soon after he starts to find out that he has new strength and new skills, plus web!

He bumbles around working out how to use his new powers. He also bumbles around trying desperately to win the heart of Mary Jane Watson. The action is well delivered and the emotional stuff is well delivered too. The kiss in the rain, best ever!

Spider-man (2002) changed of landscape in superhero movies. It was smart, funny, good story, heart warming incredible visually and well made. Spider-Man (2002) really lifted the superhero movies to the next level and gained respect.

The general public is still split on whether Spider-man is a hero or villain? However after Spider-man's last battle, his popularity is steadily on the decline. Unfortunately for Peter Parker everyone knows that he is Spider-man.

Spider-man is desperate to make-right some past events, so he visits Dr Strange to help him. From here things get way out of control. There are lots of familiar characters dropping in and adding to the story and action.

The movie drags on a bit for the first part. But is needed to link the story together. The story is clever, well thought out and has some interesting twist's to it. There is lots of action mixed with a healthy dose of political correctness. Visually it's great and well made, what you expect from a Marvel movie. There are some deep and heart tugging emotional scenes, along with the all web slinging.

Maybe just a bit long at 2 hours and 28 minutes? But the second half of the movie, makes up for the slow start. A good movie and in the top echelon of superhero movies.

Mostly set in the 1970's, Linda Lovelace becomes an unsuspecting mainstream star, courtesy of her starring role in the 1972 pornographic cult movie Deep Throat.

The movie Deep Throat becomes quite popular and well known outside of the usual trashy world of pornography. Deep Throat also makes a heap of money at the box office.

Lovelace starts off with the simple life of young Linda Boreman. She has had some troubles in the past, but seems to have a decent grip on life. Linda meets the charming Chuck Traynor and the two soon become a couple.

From here the movie tells the story of Linda willingly making pornographic movies and happily going along with Chuck. Linda becomes a celebrity and enjoys the fame and lifestyle.

The movie then twist's around and tells the story of Linda being in a very abusive and controlling relationship with scumbag Chuck Traynor. He forces Linda into prostitution and to make the pornographic movies. Linda try's to escape from Chuck, the world of seedy people and pornographic movies.

In some emotional scenes, Linda's mother is a stern and unloving women, her father is supportive but a weak man. The casting is good with Amanda Seyfried as Linda Lovelace and Peter Sarsgaard as Chuck Traynor. There are some other familiar actors in the cast such as Sharon Stone, Eric Roberts and Robert Patrick.

Linda Boreman/Lovelace is portrayed as a shy and cautious young women. She seems to be sensitive and almost frail. Yet somehow she fall's into the world of pornographic movies.

It is difficult to tell what actually happened during Linda's pornographic career? Did she do it happily or was she forced to do it? Was she a victim or a vixen? There are stories and events that are contrary to each other.

A reasonable insight into the the band known as The Doors, and particularly their lead singer Jim Morrison.

The 1960's was a turbulent time in America. Society, and the entertainment industry was changing rapidly. Values and traditions were being challenged. In 1965 along comes The Doors, a band who didn't overly confirm with the standards of society .

The documentary touches briefly on Robby Krieger, John Densmore and Ray Manzarek lives before the formation of The Doors. Jim Morrison's life before and during The Doors is explained in more detail. Three masterful musicians, the charismatic and moody lead singer Jim Morrison, shake up the music world.

Once formed and united The Doors get off to a flying start with their music career. However Jim Morrison has some behavior problems to try and overcome. The bands strengths are shown, while Jim Morrison's weakness's are exhibited.

Johnny Depp narrates this documentary and does a good job. Its an interesting documentary and moves along quickly, just like The Doors career. It has a dark feel to it, and not a lot of happy moments are displayed.

The Doors (with Jim) were together for not even 5 years, yet they had many hit songs and sold millions and millions of records.

I had some reservations about this 6 part mini series Pistol when I first saw the trailer. Would the actors and the story be able to match those frantic and delusional times from the mid to late 1970's? The Sex Pistols made just the one album and it made a huge impact on the music scene and society. The Sex Pistols started off short on musical talent, but they never let it stop them on their bumpy road to fame/infamously.

Pistol is inspired by Sex Pistol guitarist Steve Jones from his book - Lonely Boy: Tales from a Sex Pistol. Young Steve is at loose ends, as what to do with his life. He comes from a dysfunctional family and looks set to be a drifter and a petty thief. However after an accidental meeting with the outlandish Malcolm McLaren and Vivienne Westwood, the course of Steve Jones life is changed. From here the Sex Pistols story as most fans know it, gains momentum. Pistol goes through the formative years of the band until the bitter break up. Don't expect a documentary style program, Pistol is mostly a dramatised story. The Steve Jones story and character although sad and desperate at times, is not an overly difficult story to tell. Telling the story of oddball's Malcom McLaren, Johnny Rotten, Sid Vicious and the Punk revolution is a real challenge.

For people who want to learn about the Sex Pistols this might be a good place to start? Lifelong fans of the Sex Pistols might demand a bit more? I could not suspend my disbelief with most of the actors trying to portray the Sex Pistols and company. Sydney Chandler did a decent job in her role as Chrissie Hynde. She was believable and had some charisma. Unfortunately, I have to agree with some other reviews here, that Anson Boon as Johnny Rotten, seemed like he used Rik from the UK comedy - The Young Ones as his inspiration. The other actors are hit and miss in their roles, generally more of a miss. Of course there is plenty of music along the way. A cool scene is when Johnny Rotten does a singing audition for the band and Malcom. Rotten goes on to murder Alice Coopers 18 song, its just fun and silliness. But it is one of the best scenes.

The story is close to what I have read about. There are some interesting parts and it try's to captures the good times and bad times. The sets, locations and scenery are what you would expect from that time period. The story is boring and slow in parts, and then its cluttered and rushed in other parts. Somehow, someway Pistol with its actors and story doesn't really capture the atmosphere or emotions of that generation. It's not through a lack of trying, but it just does not hit the target. It's an erratic story to try and tell.

If you are a fan of the Sex Pistols, you may get some enjoyment from Pistol. I doubt Pistol will get the attention of today's younger generation or gain many new older generation fans. I'm a Sex Pistols fan and I did enjoy Pistol, but it could have been better. However I'm glad some sort of film was made as a time capsule about the Sex Pistols. So future generations can maybe have a look at it, and see what the drama was all about with the Sex Pistols during the mid to late 1970's in London. And how just 1 album made so much of an impact!

You know the formula! The unstoppable Michael Myers, blood, gore and knives.

Michael Myers escapes from what seems to be a fiery death, to cause more havoc on his old township of Haddonfield. The towns folk hear that Michael is on his way home. So they form a posse and they are out for Michael Myers blood, and naturally Michael is out for their blood. The towns folk are mainly clumsy dimwits who would be lucky to kill a cockroach. Halloween Kills flashes back to the 1978 Halloween movie to form part of the plot. It seems they flash back to 1978 as the writers are out of fresh idea's and story lines.

Jamie Lee Curtis is once again in a Halloween movie, for only a few scenes. You kind of wonder why she is in it? She most probably wonders as well. There are 4 other actors in this movie who were also in the 1978 original Halloween movie. This is Halloween movie is number 12. Its your typical Halloween slasher movie. There's nothing special about it, if ranked it would be in the middle to maybe the lower part of the Halloween movie franchise. There's no doubt there will be a Halloween 13, and they should really stop at that.

Another offering of DC comic book villain's from Belle Reve penitentiary who need to save the world.

Two teams of villain's are assembled to go to a small Island and take out a laboratory called Jötunheim. The laboratory has some strange experiments going on, and some dark secrets. If successful the suicide squad members will get reduced prison sentences, if not successful they will more than likely die. Members of the suicide squads have special or strange talents. Some members are just outright weird.

The ruthless Amada Waller oversees the operation and directs the teams. There is deceit, cover ups and plenty of action. Apart from a giant Asteroidea, there seems to be no leading bad person that the suicide squads are pitted against?

I was pleasantly surprised by Suicide Squad (2016) and really enjoyed it. I was told The Suicide Squad (2021) was better than Suicide Squad (2016). However I found the characters and story in Suicide Squad (2016) more interesting and had greater depth, than The Suicide Squad (2021). Both movies are very similar to each other.

Based on a true story, but how accurate who knows?

The teenage Ali Jahani flees Iran to escape the war with Iran. Ali moves to the US to live with his moody uncle. Like any new kid at a school its tough fitting in. Especially for Ali in a small town and coming from Iran. However Ali is very resilient and pushes ahead.

To fit in and make friends Ali wants to join one of the sport team. He eventually gets into the struggling school wrestling team. The movie shows some of the worst and some of the best traits people can have.

The movie moves along at a steady pace. It's not a glamorous or spectacular movie, but it has heart and soul. It's a roller coaster of emotions with a really good cast. Most of the story is kind of easy to guess what might happen next.

William Fichtner as Coach Plyler is the drained and lost soul wrestling coach. Jon Voight as Principal Robert Skinner is the wise but tough school principal.

George Kosturos as Ali Jahani, and Ali Afshar as Hafez Tabad the young wrestlers uncle and ex wrestler.

The thing you will usually read about this documentary in reviews, is that the first part is very repetitive and way too long for what it covers.

The first episode goes into absolute overdrive in showing how loved Savile was, with his TV and charity work. Its almost like a shrine to Savile with some small clues that he was up to something evil. The producers could have took just 30 minutes to make their point about Savile's popularity.

The second episode is mildly better and slowly gets to the point. Its like the producers were content with using lots of material from Saviles show biz life, and were happy to stretch out the documentary with it. But they couldn't be bothered in delving too deep into Saviles dark side and telling that tale.

For those who don't know, Jimmy Savile was a DJ and made his way onto British TV in the early 1960's. He gained fame as the host of Top of the Pops in 1964 and then in Jim'll Fix It in 1975. Both shows were very popular and long running. Through his charity work, Savile raised millions and millions of dollars for hospitals. This made him a very respected and an in demand person. Jimmy Savile was awarded an OBE in 1971 and he was knighted in 1990.

Savile was friends with British royalty and many well known celebrities. He was tall and wore bright clothing. Savile was quirky, fast talking and controlled any setting he was in.

However he lived a double life. For every bit of good he did, there was more evil deeds he had done. Reports were made about his abusive behavior but due to his status, the reports were swept away.

This 2 part documentary is long and tedious. If you know who Jimmy Savile is just watch the second episode. If you don't know who Jimmy Savile was, google him, then just watch the second episode.

If you like punk rock or pivotal points in the music industry this documentary is a must see. If you want to know what the all the fuss was about with the Sex Pistols, this documentary is a must see.

Johnny Rotten, Steve Jones, Paul Cook and Glen Matlock are drawn together in London during the mid 1970's, to form a rebellious band. The manipulating entrepreneur Malcolm McLaren manages the band, with Sid Vicious joining the band later on.

Inexperienced and a lack of talent is not going to hold the Sex Pistols back. They have a vision and a message, both rather distorted, but the whole thing comes together including the music and raises up. The Sex Pistols were very anti-establishment, and like young people before and after them, they challenged tradition and the normality of society. The Sex Pistols and their groupies have a strange fashion sense and a big chip on their shoulder. Incredibly outspoken and brash for the times, The Sex Pistols made no apologies for who they might offend. Their look, behavior and music totally separates them from any other musical act at the time.

The documentary starts off with a view into how bleak life was in London during the mid to late 1970's. The huge gap between the wealthy and the poor is very noticeable. The early years of the bands members is touched upon and the environment they came from. Then how they come together and then shook the foundations of the UK. There are interviews and insights into the bands early years, and their journey on a bumpy road to fame/infamously. The documentary does a great job in bringing the Sex Pistols era to life. There is commentary from the Sex Pistols themselves.

What is amazing is the legend and legacy of the Sex Pistols, considering they made just one album and were together for only 2 - 3 years. The documentary is raw but well made and it is very interesting. You can feel the atmosphere of the times and the story. If any tiny bit of criticism at all, is it didn't go deep enough into a few of the Sex Pistols famous/infamous fans including the Bromley Contingent. In saying that it does give a great insight into a ground breaking band and the birth of a great era of music.