Reviews

10 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Super 8 (2011)
1/10
An awful kids film full of awful kids !
27 November 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I am of an age now, when watching a movie stuffed with teenagers is sickeningly awful. Where are the great sci-fi films that should be in production ? I mean come on, this is a collaboration between JJ Abrams and Steven Spielberg for crying out loud. If they can't make a good sci-fi movie , who can ?

It would have been better to see the dynamic of an older group of friends in the town than kids. Because it's kids it introduces serious problems with the story. They are all nearly killed very traumatically at the very beginning (final destination style) and yet all agree to go home and tell no one in fear of getting into trouble. I'm annoyed with the film from this very premise as none of them seem bothered by this event. Then whilst all these horrible things are happening and people are going missing (including one of their dads), they carry on making their film each day as if it was business as usual, what kind of a crazy town is this where kids recover from serious trauma so easily. Then there's the romantic development between the main character and his love interest, he's about 12 and she's old enough to drive (though doesn't have her license yet), its a very unlikely and awkward romance. And the two of them are overly emotional and poignant when it doesn't make sense to be or that you would expect kids of this age to be, it seems out of place. True heroism in the face of adversity, fine with pirate ships and cute bicycle basket aliens, not so believable when its a monster akin to Cloverfield, they would be petrified, they are too young to take such roles in the story. The main kid and his dad, poor effort to build audience empathy for their relationship. I felt more empathy for the Dad of the vomiting child in The Sixth Sense, (and he only had a couple of scenes in his film to manage that), than i did for the father in this film even after the whole movie. And why the 80's, I didn't even know it was the 80's in the film to begin with, I don't know who did set design and costume, but even when the kid in the petrol shop is listening to Blondie, i genuinely though he just trying to be pastiche. It was only when the sheriff makes the ubiquitous comment 'you kids these days and your modern Walkmans, what ever next', that i realised that it was set in the 80's. It doesn't need to be realistic, its a film, but it does need to be convincing and make sense and if people are to gain any connection with the characters, they have to at least act in some way proportionately to the events that have happened. Its obvious, predictable (long quiet pause...monster jumps out...long quiet pause....monster jumps out....long quiet pause....you guessed it, monster jumps out), melodramatic and offers nothing new, in fact a little insulting to an adult audience. And if I have to watch another film where characters should be running for their lives and instead take time out and practically stop the film to fit in a romantic or sentimental moment I'm gonna start throwing things at the screen. Monsters don't wait for people to finish their lines, Monsters eat people who stop for a chat. Super 8? super c**p indeed.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casey Jones (1957–1958)
10/10
A great show from my childhood
27 September 2011
I appear to be the only person from the UK with a review for this superb show. It was shown in the UK in the 60's about 9 years after it was first produced. I was 7 years old then and remember the show with burning clarity . I still can't believe that they only made 32 episodes, and only 26 were ever shown in the UK, the show seemed to run forever ! I suppose when you're 7 years old, time seems to stretch out into infinity. Even now when I spot Alan Hale Jr. on a rerun of a film such as "Young at Heart" or a TV show such as the "Land of the Giants" I say to myself there goes Casey Jones. He played the role so brilliantly. Even when I spot his Dad, Alan Hale Snr. On one of the many films he made with Errol Flynn, I say to myself there goes Casey Jones's Dad ! If he had made another season of shows typecasting would have inevitably followed. It seems that he didn't, because of a prior commitment to another show at the time. How strange show business is. When you're 7 it's not show business though. Alan Hale Jr. really was Casey Jones, riding the Cannonball Express, and always will be.
19 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A pile of POO !
4 April 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I just cannot believe that the great John Cusack Produced and starred in this pile of Rubbish. (I would have said something else there but the web page would have auto censored my comment). It is a film totally without any style whatsoever. Did Mr Cusack actually read the script before he started on this project, or what. If He were British this film would totally destroy his chances for a knighthood. Not only is the script without meaning , but the whole idea is pathetic in the extreme. It basically is not a comedy. It is neither a farce nor a slapstick, nor has any clever plot situations that could develop into funny moments. This movie has nothing to distinguish it at all. The beginning of the movie says it all. The characters are introduced in a totally haphazard way , which makes you not care about them or understand who they are, in any way that makes any sense. As the movie unfolds you still don't really get to know who they are, which makes watching this movie a totally boring experience. How reviewers on this site can say the movie is good is beyond my comprehension. Compare this movie with the other John Cusack comedy movie "Being John Malkovich". There is no comparison. One is probably the greatest comedy of all time, populated with fantastic performances and clever situations. whereas HTTM is not only the worst comedy of all time but the worst picture of all time, with poor performances and dull very dull situations. Nice one John!
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Princess of Mars (2009 Video)
1/10
Terrible !
8 March 2011
Even Ed Wood would have thought this was a disastrous attempt at a movie. The continuity was appalling the story was terrible and the acting except Traci Lords (graduate of the Lee Strasberg studio) was cringe making. Traci Lords is an interesting case study. She is an example of a determined and complex woman with a very controversial background. Born and raised in Ohio as Nora Louise Kuzma, she moved with her divorced mother and three sisters to Los Angeles at age 12. She ran away from home and began nude modeling at age 15, then adult films a year later.

An incredibly developed, full-figured girl, she easily duped photographers, producers and directors (with the help of a false birth certificate and driver's license). Her stage name is a combination of Traci, from a former school friend, and Lords, in honor of her favorite male actor, Jack Lord ("Hawaii Five-O" (1968)). She later owned a white Persian cat named Mr. Steve McGarrett, the name of the character Lord played on the show. Traci made somewhere between 80 and 100 X-rated movies (some consisted mostly of leftover footage from previous shoots) between 1984 and 1986.

In May 1986 she was arrested by FBI agents when it was discovered she was underage, which meant that any films with her in them were illegal to rent or buy, and video stores around the country rushed to remove them. The only legal porn movie Traci made was Traci, I Love You (1987) (V), which was filmed in Paris, France, on her 18th birthday. Since she controlled distribution rights, many people believed she orchestrated the revelation herself so she could be the only one to profit from her X-rated career. Many within the adult film industry made a tacit agreement to never promote Traci or talk about her, as they felt she betrayed the industry that had had been the source of her fame in the first place. The federal government tried to prosecute the producers of the movie Those Young Girls (1984) (V), the first adult film Traci appeared in, for child pornography. However, the case fell apart when the government admitted that it, too, had been duped when Lords traveled to Europe to shoot Traci, I Love You (1987) (V) on a fake passport. After her exile from adult films, she began to resurrect her life and fulfill her lifelong ambition to star in "mainstream" films.

In 1987 she enrolled in the Lee Strasberg acting school, began voice lessons and built on her natural acting talents. Her first mainstream "break" came in Not of This Earth (1988), a remake of the classic Roger Corman sci-fi film from the 1950s. It was the last time that Traci would bare her breasts for the camera. Rare footage of a scene where she exits a shower has been seen as an outtake--Traci walks out of the shower, warning the cameramen to get ready to get the best look they could at her naked body. She jokes while draping the towel around her waist, turning her exposed chest to the camera, and then covers up. Her roles in subsequent films would see her placed in situations where there was much more left to the imagination than could actually be seen on screen for a public that only a few years earlier had seen virtually every facet of this beautiful girl.

Throughout the 1990s her hard work got her a reputation as a reliable and respected actress, in addition to being a singer and an advocate for gay rights. Her recurring role in early 1995 as a sneering sociopath, Rikki, on "Melrose Place" (1992) was critically acclaimed and landed her more roles in other movies, playing villains and psychotic characters. In the latter half of the 1990s she appeared in several B movies that went straight to video and/or cable in lead, minor or cameo roles. She even guest-starred in a number of TV shows ranging from "Married with Children" (1987), "Roseanne" (1988), "MacGyver" (1985) and "Nash Bridges" (1996).

She has always despised being referred to as "an ex-porn star", and resents the fact that a celebrity like Tim Allen can be forgiven by Hollywood for past transgressions (he was convicted and served prison time selling drugs while he was in college) but she still to this day bears the stigma of her porn years. It's probably the fantasy of the underage girl who fooled an entire industry, and, at the height of her career, was unquestionably the most popular actress with fans and filmmakers alike.

Some of her most notable TV work was as a regular on season 2 of "Profiler" (1996) from 1997 to 1998 in playing the schizo-sicko serial killer Sharon Lesher, as well as the tough heroine Jordan Radcliffe during the last season of the sci-fi series "First Wave" (1998) from 2000 to 2001. She most recently has written her autobiography, published in 2003, and even tried her hand in writing and directing a short film which would lead her to another career as a writer-director of independent films.
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
The Law and Jake Wooden !
31 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Let's face it, Robert Taylor is an awful actor. It just seems like somebody needed to fill this role quickly and grabbed a paunchy old stage hand from sweeping the floor, saying you'll do ! The guy just can't act ! How did he get by for so long in Hollywood with no talent, when there were other superb actors around like Spencer Tracy , Kirk Douglas, Richard Widmark etc... Robert Taylor must have read many scripts turned down by the proper actors of Hollywood just to get work.

He is actually billed as the lead in this movie ! Even John Wayne on a bad day could act this man under the table. The definition of a Superstar is the star that carries the movie. Without Richard Widmark's presence billed as second lead, this movie would have fallen completely flat.

Is this movie really directed by the same man who made "Bad day at Black Rock" and "The Great Escape" ? John Sturges must have been having an off day. Although he didn't have much to work with. The poor script and leading man to name but two. In Bad day at Black rock you have of course the master and arguably the best screen actor there has even been , Spencer Tracy. In this movie you have Robert (the statue) Taylor. Without a good leading man a movie is sunk before it begins.

John Sturges should have been more like William Wyler in his approach to directing Robert Taylor. To at least coax a mediocre performance from the man, rather than this exhibition of rocking horse excellence. Nice to see Dr McCoy though, playing yet another heavy, he is a very good actor, obviously, although he never liked beaming down to planets.
11 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Star Trek: Shore Leave (1966)
Season 1, Episode 15
3/10
Worth watching for the babe.
28 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
C'mon guys some previous reviewers have nearly written a novel commenting on this episode. It's just an old 60's TV show ! This episode of Star Trek is notable because of the most serious babe (Yeoman Barrow's) ever used on Star Trek and the fact that it was filmed in a real outdoor location. Unlike the TNG and Voyager series which were totally confined to sound stages.

This use of an outdoor location (and babe) gives proper depth and an almost film like quality to a quite ordinary episode of this now dated and very familiar show.

Except a few notable exceptions i.e "The city on the edge of forever" , "assignment Earth" and "Tomorrow is Yesterday" The old series of Star Trek needs to be seriously moth-balled and put out of it's boring misery. Half a dozen good episodes from 79 is quite a poor batting average.

This is typical of the boring stuff Gene Roddenberry produced back then actually, contrary to popular belief where some people worshiped the ground he walked on, he actually made a LOT of rubbish! He doesn't deserve to be spoken of in the same breath as Irwin Allen for example.

Just look at the set of the bridge of the Enterprise from a modern point of view. They used wobbly plywood for the floor, cafeteria chairs with plastic backs and cheap cardboard above the instrument panels. You can clearly see the folds in the paper ! Every expense spared or what !
10 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Walter Matthau off form!
19 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The late Walter Matthau is completely wasted in this unfunny film. Matthau made a name for himself in tour-de-force performances in for example "The Front Page" with Jack Lemmon and "The Fortune Cookie" to name only two. These were however directed by a master, the great Billy Wilder.

This film goes to show Gene Kelly's inexperience as a director. He's a dancer for goodness sake , what was he thinking making this garbage. The script is also overly complicated and unfunny in the extreme.

Matthau is completely miscast in this movie. The subtlety which he normally offers is not on show at all in this film and what results is a complete disaster for Matthau, turning in the worst performance of his career.

Robert Morse over acts to the point of being so bad that his acting must rate as the worst on screen comedy performance of all time. This type of over acting would probably work better on stage than in a film. I don't think the director (Gene Kelly) told him this at the time. Morse sickeningly over acts and Matthau under acts!

The only saving grace is the sexy Inger Stevens, although this is not supposed to be a porn picture, she is clearly naked underneath her see-thru nightdress in one scene, trying to entice Matthau. A fact which he completely ignores, preferring instead to lie in bed and read his book. Of course this is the only mildly amusing part of the movie, Matthau ignores his hot wife to run around with other less hot women. This is the ONLY joke in the whole movie that works! Although one joke and one good looking hot woman does not a movie make. It takes a good script, good acting and good directing as well, which this film is totally lacking.

Inger Stevens was of course in real life a manic depressive who sadly took her own life. Which is the greatest tragedy in movie history, losing such a hot babe to suicide. Her depression was probably not helped much after seeing the daily's of this movie! What an awful awful film!
0 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Eragon (2006)
1/10
Simply use a different cast
10 March 2010
If they had used the cast from the TV series of Merlin, This would have been a much more enjoyable movie. Merlin obviously hadn't been made back then. But the point is that if the casting directors had been as careful and skillful as they had been on Merlin this would have been a success. I.E John Hurt as the Dragon and the fantastically talented Colin Morgan as the lead. What a Dragon needs is gravitas ably supplied by John Hurt's amazing voice. When a TV show can outdo a movie there is something wrong big time! The SFX are good but then you would expect that from a Major Motion Picture. But the acting and direction are very poor.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Best Ever Steve Martin Comedy
16 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The movie is very watchable entertaining and VERY funny. I can now officially confirm that this movie proves Dennis Pennis was completely wrong in stating that Steve Martin had lost is Mojo. From the opening scene where Inspector Clouseau is trapped in the window of the moving car to the final scene at the wedding, this movie is a riotous and funny side splitting event. The casting of John Cleese was inspired. The chemistry between Martin and Cleese is superior to that in the first film between Kevin Kline and Martin. The other actors particularly the ever excellent Alfred Molina were very good. As of course was the cameo from Lilly Tomlin. The pacing and comic timing of this movie was very crisp, which added immensely to the enjoyment of the piece. I would rate it as one of the top 10 comedy films of all time. It is easily as good as anything Blake Edwards put together, with Peter Sellers. This film finally lays to rest the silly notion that Peter Sellers was a superior Clouseau than Martin. In a final point to prove Martin's Genius. I defy you not to fall on the floor with side splitting laughter when Inspector Clouseau is explaining the password to John Cleese's character after the black berets have come through the windows on the ropes. This is vintage Martin not to be missed.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Fatally Flawed Movie
18 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
First of all I can't believe people have given glowing reviews of this movie. Some say it's the best movie they have ever seen. All I can say to this is that they don't' get out much! A movie must be made by certain rules for example:

1.) It must be believable: (This is probably the most important rule for a serious drama such as this - you don't need to keep this rule for a comedy). This movie is far from believable the reasons for this I will reveal later.

2.) Character development: In this movie the characters are quite well developed for a bad film such as this and is probably only the second good element to the film.

3.)Acting : The acting was actually good, especially from the amazing Danny Glover. He could read the phone book and make it sound interesting. Also from the underrated Linda Hamilton.

4.) Pace: The movie starts well enough but does not change pace or build any tension of any kind. Leading you to believe that it's actually a feel good movie not a sad pathetic effort such as this.

5.)Structure: Good beginning poor middle terrible ending. The structure is one of the worst elements to this movie. It devotes too much time to the wrong story elements and leaves nothing for a proper rounded and satisfying film. This movie could be used as an example how NOT to make a film.

6.)Basic Story for script: The idea of Vietnam veterans hiding away in a wilderness is probably true. Nursing their wounds etc.. but the way that the story is written, there is no hope in the lives of the people, or any possibility of a well rounded story to develop. Consequently the script is just awful. IE. a.) Her seeing Danny Glover naked but no later development of this element to the story. then... b.) Embarrassing double entendre in store; With Danny Glover offering Linda Hamilton money for wine he'd taken earlier, asking her "how much will it cost, I'm not sure of the price anymore" and her thinking it was for sex, just because she's seen him naked. Which he didn't know about BTW. They've obviously known each other for years, so this story element is ridiculous. It's like they just met. c.) The little girl dying at the end of the movie is the silliest ending I think I've ever seen in a film. absolutely no point to this at all (except to make Danny Glover's character even more depressed than he already was.) and to remove any doubt that this was a "feel good movie". d.) No explanation of what happened to Ron Perlmans character after he was wounded. Strange this, has he was supposed to be one of the main stars of the film. The flaws in the story go on and on but IMDb doesn't allow more than a 1000 words so I'll stop there for now pointing out the bad story elements.

The story should have Danny Glover getting together with Linda Hamilton. Possible romance etc.. even though they've known each other for a long time, but as the writer has disregarded all the other rules, a bit of proper entertainment wouldn't have gone amiss. The little girl who strangely dies, should have actually coaxed Ron Perlmans character out of his shell and lead him back to an ordinary existence. That seemed to be the way the story was going until everything went pear shaped. As if the writer lost the will to live or something. It would also have been nice to see Linda Hamilton share some scenes with Ron Perlman for obvious reasons to anybody who is a TV fan. (That's why I bought the DVD in the first place, not to be assaulted with this garbage movie.)

In conclusion this movie is a VERY flawed exercise and seems like it was made and written by students instead of experienced pro's. Other reviewers have said this movie is gut wrenching . Hardly; it is so badly made that is just comes across as completely pointless. I could go on but this film doesn't deserve the attention. I give it 2 out of 10 only because of the good acting.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed