Change Your Image
benaven
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againMarch 2017: I've just updated the list. I'm now up to 2,227 ratings & out of the 282 new films that I've seen over the last year or more, 14 make the list. These are the last ones added.
Reviews
The Young Pope (2016)
Beautiful but s-l-o-w
We've just finished watching this series (S1) on blu ray & I was slightly disappointed by it. The acting is almost exclusively excellent, the whole thing looks absolutely beautiful (Rome & the Vatican are almost characters themselves they look so stunning), production values are very high, some of the writing is beautiful & Jude Law is a great central lead. So, whats wrong with it?
I found it a little slow, from Episode 2 onwards. Sure, some things need to be slow (I adore The Straight Story & even love The Turin Horse, so I'm not averse to a bit of slow) but there were just too many scenes where it was all a bit slow, a bit ponderous & a bit inward-looking.
At time of writing it gets 8.4 on IMDb so I'm in the minority; that's fine. You may well love it, just don't expect to chew many fingernails down.
Cars 3 (2017)
Better than 2, still not Great
We've watched all of Pixar's films, in release order, over the last 10 nights or so, with just Coco & Incredibles 2 to come tonight. It's been a great journey, seeing some old favourites again & seeing some for the first time.
Last night was my first viewing of Cars 3 & I'm pleased to say it's quite a lot better than Cars 2 which for me is the runt of the Pixar litter. I'd say that generally the Cars films are the weakest of the films, despite some obvious strengths (the voice cast is generally good, the animation is of course stunning etc).
One of my biggest issues with all of the Cars films are the racing scenes; a real weakness where the main character is a racing car. I'm a keen motorsport fan so I speak with some experience here but it's obvious that the cars are never actually racing. In proper racing, the competitors are all going as fast as they possibly can, within the restrictions of tyres, weather etc. If a bike or car needs to suddenly tighten his line because of external factors, that will overload his tyres & cause him to crash or at least run wide. In the Cars films, our hero McQueen will suddenly add 20mph to his speed and fly past a rival & into the distance. If he had that sort of speed available to him, why wasn't he using it earlier? I know we need to suspend disbelief & I'm sure it's more exciting for the youngsters etc etc but for me the racing scenes, which should be utterly thrilling, never have the tension of actual racing.
So, Cars 3 is a perfectly good film but it certainly isn't a Great film & personally I hope they don't make any more. I'd rather see the Pixar dollar spent on new projects but I've heard rumours that Cars 4 may well get the green light.
Groan.
Deep Impact (1998)
Could have been SO much better!
I just re-watched this film & was so disappointed with it. It gets 6.0 on IMDb and could have been an 8. Here's what's wrong... 1) The story is about the possible ending of the human race on Earth. Isn't that a big enough story without having to add pointless add-ons like the "affair" and the car crash of the astronomer? Just ridiculous. 2) Tea Leoni is a lovely looking girl but doesn't have the acting skills or gravitas to carry the role with any conviction. 3) Robert Duvall appears to be on autopilot. 4) Towards the end when things are utterly desperate we have the crew on the spaceship giving us tearful farewells, on camera, with their families. Let's see the bigger picture please; we don't care enough about the crew to want to watch these farewells! 5) The spaceship gets bombarded with massive chunks of comet and they practically bounce off it. At those speeds the damage from any one of those impacts would be terminal. What's good.... 1) Morgan Freeman is great, as always. Maximillian Schell even better. 2) The whole premise is thrilling and some of the images quite beautiful.
What this film desperately needed was a decent screenplay. That (& the lead actress) are what's at fault here. A better director would help but with a screenplay as woeful as this one, even Spielberg would have struggled. Hollywood; next time you're thinking of making a film like this, run the screenplay by me first; it'll save you an awful lot of trouble.
March of the Dinosaurs (2011)
Good & bad
We watched this last night & I found it to be a real mixed bag. First the good; the animation is terrific. The creatures, the settings, everything is done to a very high standard. Very impressive.
The bad? Pretty much the rest of it. Stephen Fry has a wonderful voice but I found his performance to be totally OTT; like a local am dram performance. Secondly, the pace of the show is s-l-o-w. They somehow even manage to make the chases and hunting scenes appear as if they're in slow motion. Thirdly, it's very anthropomorphic. Possibly, with the target audience in mind (14 and younger I'm guessing), that's the only way to do it, but giving a 3 ton dinosaur a brain tumour & making him forgetful?! Finally, there was no real tension at all. Having given names to 2 of the characters, it was clear from the second we heard their names that no harm would come to them, and it didn't.
So, for younger (or generally non-critical) viewers, this is a beautiful looking docudrama. For the older / more critical viewer, it's a lovely looking but slow, tension-free piece.
West Side Story (1961)
My First Musical Review!
Let me say at outset that musicals aren't really my thing. Too artificial for me. That accusation could be levelled at just about any Sci Fi film of course, but we're all different! A year or so ago I told myself to watch some musicals to see if I could love them (at the age of 47!), and have since seen Cabaret (loved it), the Sound of Music (very good) and Singin' In The Rain (fantastic), so hopes were high for WSS. It gets off to a belting start with the mysterious graphic ("what is it?!!) and has some great moments. The photography and sets are first class, some of the music & dance scenes have terrific energy and vibrance. For a film "of its time" it is a great period piece and tells us of the emergence of rebellious youth who don't anymore quake in their boots when the police arrive on the scene. So, why the 5 stars? For me there are just too many songs. The 3 musicals mentioned above felt like a film with a few songs; WSS felt like song & dance with a film tacked on the side. As the titles rolled, my Mrs said "What a sad ending" but I hadn't felt it at all. I'd seen "Everybody's Fine" the night before and that is sad towards the end, but not this. The reason is that apart from Natalie Wood's character I just couldn't relate to any of the characters as they felt so artificial to me. Anybody that breaks into song in even the most traumatic of situations feels remote to me, so much so that I couldn't really care what became of them. Anyway, WSS gets a score of 7.7 on IMDb (at time of writing in Sept '11) so I'm clearly in the minority! I'm glad I've seen it & I can imagine for the musical lover it is a must-see. For me I've seen it, glad I've ticked it off but won't watch it again.
The Social Network (2010)
Flavour of the Year?
I remember 17 years ago, I'm guessing, buying a film magazine (presumably Empire, here in the UK) that had an article entitled "The 100 Greatest Films of All Time" or some-such. Somewhere in the list was Interview With The Vampire and I remember thinking that it was only in the list because it was new and that if a similar list was drawn up at any year in the future then the film wouldn't appear. Sure enough, I've never seen it on such a list since, fine film though it is. It's very good, but one of the best 100 ever? I don't think so. Which brings me to TSN. It's a good film, possible a very good one, but one worthy of IMDb's Top 250? I don't think so. It's an interesting story with some interesting characters that tell the story of one of the major social developments of our time but it certainly isn't a Great film. Much of the acting is of a high standard, the direction is strong and the film certainly looks nice thanks to some inspired cinematography but I just didn't think it was as good as the IMDb rating led me to expect. I saw it last night; within a week of watching The Secret In Their Eyes. To me, unless you have a pathological hatred of subtitled movies there's no question at all as to which is the better film. One is good going on very good; the other is magnificent. Yet their scores on here are almost identical. But, we're all different. If you haven't seen TSN I'd recommend that you do so as it's a nice way to spend a couple of hours. If you go to see it expecting to have to re-write your own personal list of Greatest Films Of All Time then you might not need to do so after watching it. I'd be interested to see if the film's score drops over the years. My bet is that it will.
El secreto de sus ojos (2009)
About as good as film gets
My title says it all really; you might not think this is (or will be, if you have yet to see it) as good as The Godfather or whatever your favourite is, but really, it's about as good as film gets. It runs to just over 2 hours but there isn't a second where it even drags slightly. It has it all; nail-biting twists and turns, a real, proper romance, beautiful cinematography, acting straight out of the top drawer, fantastic locations, a world-class script, real, believable characters; the lot. I spent 2 hours trying to work out what was coming next and I didn't get it right very often! Unlike a lot of films however, that throw you a curved ball right at the end and that you had no chance of ever guessing it, none of the jolts in this film are in any way unrealistic. You watch it & you think; "so that's what happened"! I can't speak too highly of the film. If you haven't yet seen it, please do so. It is utterly wonderful. Although I only watched it last night I can easily imagine that it's a film that will stand repeated viewings & there aren't many films that I say that about. Maybe my 9 / 10 score is a bit harsh!
The Thirteenth Floor (1999)
Poor; very poor
OK. I've just finished watching it; literally 10 minutes ago! What do I think? My title should tell you; it's a poor film, possibly a very poor one. The cast is OK at best and more likely poor. Craig Bierko? Just about passable. Too bland really for a lead role. Far too bland. Gretchen Mol? Not bad but not great either. Dennis Haysbert? Underused. He's a powerful actor who isn't really given the chance to show his class. Cinematography? Gorgeous; with shots varying between "very good" and "stunning". Some of the shots of the city from above, by helicopter, at night, are truly stunning. Overall? A film with poor direction, poor acting, cheesy settings, a weak script and more twists than the script can handle. 3/10. How it get's an IMDb 6.8 is utterly beyond me. I've seen really good films that score lower on here. Life is a mystery OK, but avoid this film! Having ranked ~ 1,150 films on IMDb I'd have expected this (having seen it) to have scored a 5 at best.
Battle of Los Angeles (2011)
Diabolical
Dear oh dear oh dear. I have rated 1,148 movies on IMDb and will clearly have forgotten a lot from years ago, so it's safe to say I've seen a few films. This is, by far, the worst ever. It's so bad it's hard to know where to start. Acting? Nia Peeples is the only one who gives the impression that she's ever acted before. The rest wouldn't even get into the local am dram society. Robert Pike Daniel? Worst acting ever! Effects? Oh dear. It's as if the movie were offered to all the studios, rejected, then the team thought "Hang on, we've got $80 between us; why don't we make it ourselves?" Character development? Er, none. Holes in the story? How many stars are there in the sky? Needless to say I was hood-winked into buying the DVD thinking it was Battle: Los Angeles. How on earth I sat through it is a mystery all of its own. I gave the film 1/10 but only because that's the lowest score available to me. Ideally I'd liked to have given it 0.000001/10. Avoid like the plague!