Change Your Image
maverick-84924
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Point of No Return (2020)
Utter Dross
Don't worry about odd accents (or lack of them), don't worry about uniforms of dubious accuracy, don't worry about much of any other complaint.
The simple fact is that this movie is, quite simply, boring. The 'dramatic' sequences would be better served in a mid-day soapie or straight to TV movie from Hallmark, such is the acting involved. The tension, drama, etc one might expect from the scenario simply isn't there and the predictable end is as worthless as the rest of it all.
Unfortunately, this movie is testament to the fact that you may own some uniforms or vehicles, you may have a bunch of friends who are keen to help you and you may own a camera, but this doesn't mean that you can act, direct or even attempt to produce something worth watching and when you attempt to do all of that on a shoe-string budget, it shows.
Search and Destroy (2020)
Some think this is a Spoof, I think it's plain garbage.
Seriously, this is beyond bad. Our "US Army Rangers" (in Africa in the Past!... Really?) start off in quite a predicament being pinned down by a Ukrainian warlord and his band of 'international terrorists'. When he calls for air support, we first see what appear to be Bulgarian MiG-29s taking off. Switch to a cockpit view, and the flyboys are wearing Apache Gunship (read helicopter) type helmets and sights. Switch back to the aircraft bearing down on the bad guys and instead of the MiGs, there's a pair of Sukhoi Frogfoots.
Jesus, could it get worse? Unfortunately, yes.
Those who have attempted to suggest that this is some sort of spoof must have a very high standard to look up to if they think this dreck was deliberately made to look like utter crap.
I would suggest it's merely some demented idiot's idea of an 'action movie'
Cradle of Fear (2001)
Disjointed Dreck at best
I'm more than surprised that this has any sort of positive review. If this is 'new British Horror', Hammer Studios and anyone related to that outfit must be rolling in their graves.
This is quite possibly the worst movie, splatterfest or otherwise created in the history of cinema. It makes Attack of the Rotten Tomatoes look like cinematic excellence in comparison.
Quite simply, no redeeming features within this pile of offal. Drug addled hookers wander around attempting to act, losers in even worse high-school grade makeup join them and 'Dani Filth'... well, let's just suggest he might want to stick to yelling incoherently into a microphone for 3 minutes and calling it 'music' than consider himself capable of 'acting'.
As others have mentioned, plenty of ripoffs which I for one, would love to see the big guys in the movie world take this band of clowns to the cleaners for.
Damn shame there isn't a zero or negative score available.
Tomb Raider (2018)
Don't Believe the Negatives
This new reboot of the Tomb Raider franchise is just what the doctor ordered. Much like the recent games, Lara's character is a young, vulnerable girl who evolves throughout the movie, rather than a superhero from the get go.
It seems plenty of people don't quite get that in the first instance, but the level of vitriol against this movie is certainly unwarranted. A few minutes checking the negative reviews explains quite a bit.
One reviewer whines about the lack of Lara's signature twin pistols. Apparently they didn't see, hear of or even play the new rebooted games because those weapons aren't present as part of Lara's character development (She's not the iconic "Tomb Raider" in them yet). Amusingly though, she actually buys the two pistols at the end of the movie, so I'm guessing said reviewer didn't actually watch the actual movie?
Another bemoans Vikander as a pale imitation to Angelina's version. Once again, they didn't get the memo about this not being like the original games and based, instead, on the newer reboots.
It appears that most were expecting the old, huge bosomed action hero, rather than the younger, more realistic character and have been denied their fap-time. A grand shame.
In the real world, this is an excellent reboot of the franchise and Vikander's portrayal is excellent. She was brilliant in Ex Machina and shines again here. I look forward to more in the franchise, much the same way as I loved the reboots on Playstation.
Outpost (2008)
Hackneyed Script, Laughable Plot & Clichéd Characters Abound
When one reads about a movie in the same breath as "Dog Soldiers", one has a certain expectation. When reviews abound that this movie is 'better than anticipated'. 'well acted' and 'realistic military action', similar expectations arise.
The reality is somewhat different. A very rag-tag group of mercenaries travel through an unidentified Eastern European country to find an abandoned bunker housing a secret Nazi wonder machine.
Numerous issues start the ball rolling with our intrepid crew as half of them are armed with H&K G36 carbines (rather nice, modern weapons, albeit without any of the accessories that are haute de guerre these days), whilst the others tote variations on the AK-47 platform. So first up, you have half the squad unable to use the other half's ammunition, quite a basic military no-no from an alleged group of experienced ex-soldiers.
Whilst each man has a uniform befitting his background, we're told it's the 'present day', so why is everyone wearing seriously old kit? The Brits wearing 80s DPMs, the lone 'American' Woodland cammies, the Belgian an old 'jigsaw' pattern uniform whilst the French Legionairre wears 1990 circa CE pattern camouflage (this individual is apparently the team medic, but is a rather portly specimen indeed). The 'Russian' wears a rather plain uniform under a heavy coat which is difficult to identify easily. The last 'soldier' is dressed in civilian clothes with some military load bearing kit, rather reminiscent of the separatist groups in the former Yugoslavia, so I guess he's the resident 'Eastern European'.
Their fieldcraft swings from attempts at 'professional' from the Commando in charge of the group to rather laughable from the Russian who has a habit of swinging his weapon wildly about whilst standing completely upright.
Upon entering the bunker, most have mechanic's work lights complete with corded power supply as their light source. Really?
After the initial entry, the 'science' is attempted to be shown off after which the usual zombie dross starts up with them dying unusual and creative deaths along with the clichéd tensions between the crew.
I couldn't bring myself to the end of the movie to be brutally honest, so I can't comment on that moment, but beyond that, this is a B-grade, straight to DVD 'experience' that would be better served as a video game than a movie.
PS. I skipped through to the end, everyone dies, the 'second team' turns up & it's rinse & repeat. What an absolute joke.
First We Take Brooklyn (2018)
Not Your Average Gangster Movie
First We Take Brooklyn is quite a gritty, visceral movie. Taking a totally different direction than most mainstream gangster movies, it tells the story of Mikki, a violent ex-con recently released from prison in Israel who goes to America to make his life better.
The Jewish Brooklyn patois that pervades the movie is quite different and refreshing without the cliched black or Italian influence. Some might dislike the use of subtitles, but they add a degree of authenticity to many conversations that would otherwise be a little flat if spoken in English.
Harvey Keitel plays a good supporting role as the Russian mob boss as does Edoardo Ballerini as his son, Dimitri. Annalynne McChord plays the gorgeous Esther alongside a very nervous brother Arik, played by Sasha Feldman.
The movie's principal star is Danny A. Abeckaser, who also directed and produced this low-budget piece, playing the role of Mikki.
All the actors really nailed their respective roles in my opinion and, given the predominantly US locations (excepting the opening minutes in Israel), the film's budget didn't detract from this. I'm guessing Abeckaser has called in a few favours as all seem really involved and committed to their respective roles.
One minor complaint would be the time shifts within the movie. Some are for artistic use such as the cab ride starting in Israel and concluding in Brooklyn, but others seem to jar a little. One minute Mikki is a newly arrived immigrant, the next, he's wheeling and dealing with the big guys. Perhaps a longer movie might have added some meat to these scenes, although some might complain that it would be padding.
The only thing that didn't sit well with me was the ending. Sure, Mikki was a violent thug who led the life and died appropriately, but the abruptness and rolling credits moment's later didn't tie anything up for my mind. The duplicitous Avi, played by Guri Weinberg ambushes our hero, but that's it. Nothing on how the Russians reacted to this peace offering, nothing on how Esther reacted, especially given her pregnancy, not even any real emotion from Avi, beyond badgering Arik into sorting out the ambush.
In closing, The Godfather or Scarface it ain't, but then it didn't have half those iconic films' budgets. This is an excellent movie and I'm interested to see what else Danny Abeckaser can come up with in the future.
Cleanskin (2012)
Gritty, topical & twisted
Cleanskin is a well directed piece about the contemporary issue of 'home grown' terrorism in the UK. All sides are portrayed with a degree of neutrality, without the usual stereotyping of similar films such as those from the US.
Some scenes do jar a little, or beg for some explanation, however.
Sean Bean's character is noted as a veteran of British military service in Afghanistan and, whilst visiting the funeral of a dead soldier, who we are led to believe he served with (Bean apparently an officer or warrant-officer by another character's reference to him as 'sir'), another disabled veteran stumbles away from the service feeling somewhat sorry for himself, only to be stopped by Bean, who straightens him up and makes him realise his own situation isn't that dire. Here's the conundrum though. As the other man hobbles away down the aisle, we see a photo of the dead soldier, complete with red beret, denoting service with the Parachute Regiment. When talking with Bean, he asks him about 'the Regiment'. That sort of phrase is more suited to talk about the SAS, frequently referred to as 'the Regiment', especially by those within it. A minor flaw of sorts as one could surmise that this young man is referring to the Parachute Regiment, although much less likely.
Another scene where Abhin Galeya, the 'home grown' terrorist is talking with the usual firebrand extremist cleric in a flashback scene about going to Afghanistan to learn how to 'do useful things' as the cleric puts it. Nothing is made of this, although I suspect the film's budget had something to do with that particular concept.
One final thing that was a little off was the whole 'false flag' twist towards the end. It did little to carry the story along as Charlotte Rampling's character was amoral enough to have been merely corrupt rather than willing to instigate terror acts for her own agenda. This smacked of a paranoid patriot US style storyline which I felt detracted from the overall feel of the thing.
These issues aside, the various twists and turns and brief violent scenes along with the psychological stress suffered by many within the film, especially Ewan (Bean) and Ash (Abhin Galeya) really do the film justice. Tom Burke's role as Ewan's erstwhile partner, Mark is another nice subplot as is the character Kate, Ash's sometime love interest played by Tuppence Middleton.
All in all, a well made, topical film well worth a watch.
Below (2002)
I Just Don't See The Point of the Rave Reviews.
Below is firmly ensconced in the B category of movies. It's a mix of well acted / shot work along with 80s Horror Schlock. The number of rave reviews is, however, beyond comprehension.
The plot becomes more fanciful with each second and the 'twists' more pretzel-like in equal measure. Plenty could have been made of the psychological tension regarding the various issues the crew faced during the piece, but the 'ghost' element is just additional dreck that spoils an otherwise good movie.
As one reviewer noticed "U-571 meets Poltergeist". Well, U-571 was utter dross of the first order, whilst the original Poltergeist was well made horror fare considering its vintage. It seems an apt choice. If this had been made in the 80s or 90s, I expect we would have thought it was 'edgy' or 'new'. Unfortunately for this movie, this amateur horror plotline torpedoes the movie more effectively than any German could.
5 Stars are for the sets, the cast and the half of the story that is normal. The remaining lack of any stars is for the laughable second act.
Blade Runner 2049 (2017)
Why the Hate?
Along with the usual suspects of 'paid off' reviewers & the like, the amount of hate towards the movie is somewhat baffling. I'm guessing either the reviewers expected a carbon copy of the original (useless, as the original is so much itself that any copy would be soulless) or a slap in the fast towards the original.
Really? Piecing together the events of the original with some of the first movie's characters (Rachel's scene is unmissable) and heading in a twisting, turning direction that both beguiles and shocks seems quite appropriate for a sequel.
The reviewers who have laid the hate on thick are either butthurt millenials who were offended by this continuation of what they no doubt describe as a 'retro, cult classic' or others who haven't even seen the original, read the book it was inspired by or lived through that particular cinematic timeframe.
If you actually love Blade Runner for the genre-defining classic that it is, I heartily recommend Blade Runner 2049 without reservation.
Soldiers of the Damned (2015)
Soldiers of the Disappointly Dreary, Dodgy and Dull
Forget the complaints about British accents on German soldiers, forget the complaints about Indian tomahawks being wielded by a German with alleged native American blood (untermensch anyone?), forget the fact this is low budget.
The movie is a dreary, disjointed load of garbage simply put. The acting is wooden and cliched and, whilst the actors are dressed appropriately for their roles, their actual way of wearing said uniforms or behaving around weapons is amateur at best. One gets the feeling that their 'military & technical advisor' was a pre-teen who had played CoD WW2 on campaign mode.
Add to this, a high school drama club production team and cast and you have the perfect recipe for utter tripe.
This hasn't got a cute twist, a solid performance by any cast member, an interesting storyline or anything else to hold the viewer's attention. Those suggesting there are little nuances to explain the plotline must either be working for the production studio or have a plentiful supply of hallucinogenic drugs.
This is 'old school horror / sci fi'. The is immature, hackneyed dross.
Bushwick (2017)
Paranoid Rednecks vs New Yorkers
Bushwick is a very low budget piece and, despite what others have said about it having a real depth, the flow of the story simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Our heroine metamorphoses from scared girl to warrior during the film whilst her erstwhile comrade bestows his knowledge little by little towards her, much like some video games that propel the player from newbie to elite as the game continues. In many ways, as others have said, it flows like a video game with admittedly immersive camera work and sound.
One glaring plothole was the girl's complete disregard for the welfare/death of her boyfriend within the first moments of the film. Considering the way she loses herself over the other incidents through the movie, one would have thought his death would have left some sort of mark.
Bautista's ex-vet role has some degree of authenticity, beyond the fact that he routinely disregards collecting any sort of firepower beyond a pistol. This definitely moves away from the shoot 'em up game for reasons that aren't really made apparent.
Those especially negative reviews (I feel this is more a neutral one) routinely whine about the female lead as a SJW (an alt-right term for Social Justice Warrior). The word snowflake is bandied around too, presumably alluding to the lead's (Brittany Snow) dirty blonde hair and Caucasian complexion. I actually would have thought those reviewers would have found her one of the 'pure race' myself, but I digress. One reviewer also mentions how the characters unbelievably take down the 'spec ops troopers'. I'm not too sure what movie he was watching, but the inbred, illiterate bigot that they capture clad in his black 'spec ops' uniform is hardly a poster boy for any sort of Special Forces operator.
Our heroine attempts amazing feats as the movie progresses, especially after Bautista's character is killed as a result of 'friendly fire' (ie: a scared black girl hiding from the invaders). This new found 'ooh rah' attitude rankles the alt-right reviewers somewhat apparently, so they no doubt cheer when one of their brethren are responsible for putting a bullet through her head at the climax of the film.
If the film does anything, it infuriates the Trump-voting, Bible-thumping bigots out there which isn't a bad thing. Just a grand shame it wasn't a little better executed.
13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi (2016)
Michael Bay makes an good apolitical movie (surprisingly).
The story behind this movie is fairly well known. The blame laid upon Clinton & Obama routinely spouted by the alt-right as evidence of their heinous natures. Funnily enough, they don't mention the attacks & deaths of US citizens during Bush Jr's term in office. (13 separate incidents and 60 US citizens killed). Where's the hand ringing and finger pointing regarding that? Even the GOP witchhunt found then Secretary of State Clinton blameless for the incident.
With that background, I began watching the movie fairly sceptically (especially given it's Bay heritage). I'm happy to say, however, that it wasn't the political aggrandising we've come to expect from the right side of Hollywood. Eastwood and the dross that was American Sniper could learn quite a bit by actually giving facts without the hyper-patriotic BS we've come to expect from a sector of Hollywood.
The movie is, instead, a gripping tale of the fate of the PMCs and State Department / CIA operatives during the ordeal in Benghazi. There's even a bit of pro-Libyan blurb towards the end, mentioning that the average Libyan was appalled by the carnage.
Some Bayism's occur, obviously, with slo-mo deaths, gore and lots of flashy explosions, but this doesn't detract from the meat of the story. Those who complain about these should really get a life and take it for what it is.
Equally so, the macho, bearded 'operators' are actually the sort of men one would expect to see in a high-level PMC. The amateurs at the Embassy compound contrast rather well and are more prevalent in the cowboy outfits like Blackwater and the like. This isn't Bay giving some sort of homo-erotic homage to these men, it's just a reality of the situation. They take extraordinary risks in extremely hostile environments and are very 'Alpha Male' personalities. Once again, deal with it.
In closing, it's a lot better than American Sniper and although 'gung ho' is a good ride from beginning to end.
Phantom (2013)
Old School Sub Movie
A thoroughly engaging story with a great ensemble cast make Phantom a well made, enjoyable movie full of grittiness and tension.
Don't like Americans playing Russians? Get over it.
Not 100% authentic? I guess you thought American Sniper was a documentary?
Seriously though, this is much better than many sub movies I've seen whether big budget or small and deserves all the praise it's been given thus far and little or none of the detrimental whinings of negative reviewers.
Once again, have a look at the 1s and 2s and take note they they are predominantly one review only (namely this one) and have apparently been members of IMDb for decades. Take from that what you will.
400 Days (2015)
400 Days of Boredom
Seriously, how anyone can think that this juvenile attempt at cinema has any redeeming features is quite beyond me.
The movie is that vague, disjointed and has such a 'really?' ending that some reviewers seem to want to add their own interpretations into the storyline. If this is 'experimental' cinema, it's a failed experiment the like of which we've never seen. Alchemy or the fountain of youth are more believable premises that this utter waste of time.
Dan Cook, in particular, cements himself as a B-movie hack, playing the role of a knuckle-headed Neaderthal who somehow got picked for astronaut training. Of all the clichéd characters in the thing, his is the worst and hearkens back to the dreary days of the 70s and 80s.
Equally so, I'm guessing the sets were bought at a straight to video 80s film yard sale such is their 'authenticity'.
Trust me, believe the 1 or 2 star reviews. The comparisons to 'Moon' are apt. This is just as poorly composed and trite. As for those giving anything beyond 2 stars without some excuse should have to sit through another bout of this cinematic diaohrrea.
Stratton (2017)
Why the Hate?
After reading many reviews about this movie, I was a little hesitant, but ended up being pleasantly surprised.
Somewhat understated instead of the crass flash-bang of most American films in the genre, Stratton put up a believable story-line with a worthwhile cast.
The moaning and complaining about Dominic Cooper is puzzling, with constant gripes about his lack of physical presence. Anyone with an inkling of the nature of Special Forces soldiers, especially non- American ones, would know that they aren't all 6ft plus full of rippling muscle but are frequently 'normal' looking blokes who are capable of extraordinary things, much like Cooper's portrayal. Mark Donaldson, the Australian SASR VC recipient is a classic example.
As for his firearms skills, another sage suggested that "Half the time he uses a weapon he seems to be trying to emulate John Rambo, hip-firing at any opportunity.". I'm not sure what movie that individual was watching, but Cooper, Hoechlin and Stowell all shouldered their weapons sighting through the optics attached as is the usual case with modern operations.
One 'expert' reviewer mentioned the use of 7.62mm NATO rounds being incorrect. I'm guessing a little too much time spent playing CoD here. Sorry, wrong again. Gemma Chan's character quite specifically mentions a sniper rifle, with this chambering being quite popular with the application.
Equally so, Connie Nielsen's 'atrocious' accent. I couldn't see the problem myself. She spoke with a grace and dignity one would expect from a woman in her role.
The action scenes were 'action', the drama as so and the humour or lighter moments equally appropriate.
One might think the amount of negative reviews were from opponents of either Dominic Cooper or Simon West or those who were disappointed with Henry Cavill's lack of appearance.
Either way, horses for courses and this course suited me down to the ground. Recommended.
Munich (2005)
A Neutral View on Extrajudicial Killings
Munich, whilst not a slavishly accurate historical depiction of the events after the massacre of Israeli athletes in West Germany in 1972 is an excellent movie showing the impact that these sort of operations have on the people involved in them.
Eric Bana's role as team leader Avner Kaufman is superb, bringing a real humanity to this Mossad agent. The trials and tribulations he and his team go through during the years away from Israel are many and aren't just 'brushed off' like some action movie heroes might.
The other cast members are equally adept at giving a real face to their roles. Daniel Craig plays Steve, the hot-headed South African, Ciarán Hinds as Carl, the worldly, at times melancholy old soldier, Hanns Zischler as Hans, the pragmatic German 'cleaner' and Mathieu Kassovitz as Robert, the Belgian toymaker turned bomb maker.
Geoffrey Rush as Ephraim, the team's Mossad 'handler' gives a excellent supporting performance as does Gila Almagor as Avner's Mother and Ayelet Zurer as Daphna Kaufman, Avner's gorgeous, supportive wife. Other important roles are played by Mathieu Amalric as Louis and Michael Lonsdale as Papa, the Frenchmen (son & father) who feed information to Avner and his team and, paradoxically, information to those hunting them.
The film pulls no punches, showing the brutality and ethical dilemmas the team and those they hunt face. It's this very stance that apparently gained the film some hate from members of the Zionist Organisation of America, a highly pro-Israel group who were aghast at the Israeli's being portrayed as assassins. Unfortunately for them, it's a case of "if it quacks like a duck, it's a duck". These men hunt & kill a number of Palestinians without legal authority at the behest of their masters. Sounds pretty much a definition for an assassin to me. Equally galling to ZOA was the depiction of Palestinans as (gasp, shock) having families, feelings and even idealism and not being simple robotic fanatics.
It's this very honesty that gives the film it's true character. Suggesting neither good nor bad, but merely being.
Those looking for a historically accurate movie will be chagrined no doubt, but I've yet to see a movie that is a genuine truth rather than an ambiguous kaleidoscope of truth and artistic licence.
I have little or no hesitation in recommending this somewhat long movie to anyone looking for a thriller with much more depth that your average flick.
Standard Operating Procedure (2008)
SOP instead of Criminal Behaviour
Reading some reviews on this, I'm a little confused. The subject matter was dealt with effectively. The interviewees spoke frankly (if not specifically honestly) about their experiences. Was there some deep resolution to this? Hardly. The little fish fried and the middle- sized wandered away to promotions and congratulations, whilst the biggest (Rumsfeld, Bush & Cheney) avoided everything.
Beyond that, the thing I found the most interesting was the personalities involved. After watching Camp X-Ray, some reviewers said that Kristen Stewart's character was impossible to have been that of a military person. The vulnerabilities and flaws she displayed as a human being apparently aren't SOP for the US military. Well folks, here's a reality check for you. Stewart's failings were nothing compared to those interviewed.
From Brigadier General Janis Karpinski down to PFC Lynndie England, I saw a whole bunch of whining, simple cowards intent on mitigating their own crimes by dropping hellfire onto anyone else in their range. Not quite the shiny, perfect robots that some people seem to think should be present in movies regarding the US military.
This doco was a critical piece in the puzzle that was the debacle of Iraq, the excesses of Bagram and Gitmo and all the other less publicised 'detention facilities' spread across the world. The 'world police' need some Internal Affairs action it would seem.
The most amusing thing of it all was the oft-repeated line of 'I was only following orders'. Where have we heard that before? Oh yeah, that's right. 1946, Nuremberg. Lucky these were the 'good guys'.
War Pigs (2015)
70s B Grade resurfaces again
Many reviews of this movie quite correctly point out clichéd characters & dialog and laughable 'action' sequences. These are quite true. Many also point out some degree of authenticity with equipment and this is also true to a point with the exception of a couple of fairly glaring errors.
The dreaded V3 this rag tag band are to find isn't a V-3 in the first instance. It's a normal (if gargantuan) German rail gun. Some reviewers have pointed this out, but then wax long & lyrical over the fact that it isn't a fixed weapon. The actual V3 was a fixed weapon, dug into a hillside but from a visual look would have been rather boring.
The use of the German vehicles is both welcome and grating. The half-track is quite authentic (probably one of the Czech rebuilds) as is the PzKpfw III. Two problems arise here. The German troops milling around wear SS camouflage and other accoutrements, the half- track on the other hand has a Wehrmacht licence plate. Possible, but improbable. The second issue is the Panzer III. We're told the movie is set in 1944 and the SS troops are, in some instances, armed with StG 44 assault rifles applicable to the timeframe. Why then are these elite troops saddled with an old Panzer? Produced in 1942/3, the Ausf M variant was most definitely a second line vehicle by this time and hardly the equipment of an SS unit.
Overall, one is reminded of the poorly made war movies of the 70s and 80s. Clichéd dialog, cookie-cutter characters and laughable scenarios.
Goss and Lundgren play good roles, some of their squad are likable types, although Noah Sagan's character Sgt Chambers would, I suspect, have been spending the war in Leavenworth rather than the front lines, given his complete lack of even the most basic military courtesy. How this whining know-it-all made it through basic, let alone achieve Sergeant is quite beyond me.
Mickey Rourke's 'character' (rather apt really) is a complete joke. Allegedly a colonel with WWI service, his personalised take on the concept is an insult to any officer rank and makes Duvall's character in Apocalypse Now seem like a graduate of West Point. As others have pointed out, if this laughable buffoon would have rolled into an officers' briefing with other ranks of his own level or above, he would more than likely be laughed out the door.
In closing, the ghost of Michael Dudikoff is alive and well.
Fortress (2012)
Not Mephis Belle or Even Pearl Harbour
This is a B-grade production who's producers have gone to lengths to apologise for any inaccuracies, even if it was a very childish, mealy-mouthed apology full of passive-aggressive barbs and vitriol.
B grade aside, unknown actors aside, historical inaccuracy aside, even fairly woeful CGI aside, this movie is simply amateurish nonsense.
Forget the tiny details of historical accuracy that could have elevated the film, how about just some basic continuity? Towards the end, our plucky ball gunner mentions (and we see) the left hand main undercarriage leg of the Lucky Lady sail towards the earth, completely disconnected from the aircraft. Moments later, another belly shot shows both undercarriage legs firmly ensconced in their respective bays. Not only did the leg fall in oblivion, the cycling of the landing gear apparently didn't occur in the first instance.
As for the CGI, I've seen computer games with more thought put into their production.
The actors deserve some praise for their various (if predictable) character roles, but beyond that, the producers and their petty whining about the critiques suffered, the directors and their apparent lack of desire for continuity (or even period dialogue) and the CGI 'artists' for their high-school attempts deserve little, if anything.
The producers bemoaned the lack of support from organisations with actual B-17s. Perhaps these groups took one look at this motley assortment and thought 'hell, no!'.
To those who attempted to compare this with Memphis Belle... really? Have you actually watched either film? I'm going with 'no'.
This is just a sad little millennial's's attempt at what they think B- 17 operations must have been like. They've made precious little effort to actually find out much of any reality and for this, they should be ashamed, as the period in question is one rarely covered and deserved so much more.
In closing, I'd suggest the producers put their whiny apology as a preface to their next project, because I know full well that, if I had read it prior to watching this, I would have avoided this movie like the plague.
Drága Elza! (2014)
Another Different War Movie
Dear Elza! or (Drága Elza! in Hungarian) is the story of a Hungarian soldier fighting on the Eastern Front who is captured by the Russians and sent to a penal battalion.
Like the Russian film, White Tiger, it attempts to provide a dramatic, symbolic message about military duty & survival with slightly supernatural overtones and, like the former, is let down by that very mechanic.
Whilst it's portrayal of Lombos Mihály's time within the Russian penal battalion seems authentic enough, the use of the old Jewish- Hungarian deserter as Lombos' conscience (or the Devil depending on your interpretation of the final scenes) is clumsy.
The penultimate scene where Mihály finally decides to escape climaxes with a fight between him and the NKVD officer in charge of his unit, he is saved by the deserter attacking the officer, allowing Mihály to go through the final moments of the scene. Since we later find that the deserter didn't, in fact, exist in the first instance, one is forced to ask how this imaginary figure saved our hero in the first instance.
The film reminds one of the Sixth Sense, where there will be those who would stridently demand that they knew the deserter was a figment in the first instance and, with the benefit of hindsight, go to great lengths to point out the 'obvious' clues within the movie.
Other plot holes such as Mihály's explanation that his entries into his journal were when he decided to kill his wife back in Hungary aren't explained or whether or not he made it back to Hungary posing as a Russian soldier aren't touched upon, leaving one feeling rather bewildered.
Had they stuck to a regular story of this soldier's capture and subsequent war within the penal battalion without the moralistic overtones, I believe the film would have had a greater appeal.
The Survivalist (2015)
A Harrowing, Dystopian Thriller? Hardly.
This film has been hailed by some as a cinematic masterpiece. I'm guessing that the reviewers are either related to the cast or fell asleep half-way through this turgid waste of time and dreamt something wonderful.
The story itself is bereft of any real background and the viewer is left to their own devices in most instances to work out what's actually going on.
Our intrepid hero, played by Martin McCann, has apparently survived in his little shack for seven years after some undisclosed calamity. We find later that he happily hamstrung his own brother to ensure his own survival, so we're dealing with a real champion here.
After a few scenes of action man in various stages of undress, along with dragging a nude corpse around within the initial moments of the movie, we're greeted with a rather crass scene of him attempting to masturbate whilst looking at a photo of a fully clothed woman that he found after slaughtering someone earlier.
This really sets the tone for the rest of the movie.
Enter a mother & daughter, hoping that our hero will give them food or other succour. After a brief discussion about how he's not going to help them, the mother-of-the-year happily pimps her daughter out for a meal.
Olwen Fouéré, the mother, plays her role of a shrewd, untrustworthy and heartless bitch to the nth degree.
Her daughter is played by Mia Goth, who, whilst attractive in her own way, seems to think that having a vacant, slack-jawed expression whilst getting naked is a key to stardom.
Some more gratuitous nudity is given and, at some point within the movie, all three actors have full-frontal scenes. Our buffed hero is obviously meant to display his 'manliness' and his new concubine is the formulaic 'hot chick getting naked' but I'm rather baffled as to Olwen's nude scenes. Watching a late middle-aged, flabby woman float around a pond naked is hardly hardcore porn, but it's use to the storyline is debatable. Perhaps the director wanted to show that he was a equal opportunity director or very much into the empowerment of women?
The movie heads rapidly downhill from there with Mia falling pregnant, more scheming by Olwen to kill the Survivalist and, finally, ending with the death of the mother and our hero, the destruction of the 'farm' and Mia's flight from the perpetrators of the destruction.
The final scene has her wandering up to a large, wire-fenced encampment. Apparently, this is the sort of place that our survivalist hero & his brother used to raid in an effort to steal supplies.
Whilst Mia stands forlornly at the gate, a female guard in a tower asks Mia how far along she has to go. She replies about 6 months and when asked about a name, she replies 'If it's a boy'.
The credits roll on that line. Apparently the director couldn't even work out an appropriate final line and thought he'd make to with half a sentence.
In closing, the movie is predominantly boring and bleak. I expect some will gush about its 'grittiness' or 'edginess', but then we also live in a world with the Kardashians as stars.
Green Zone (2010)
Green Zone
First things first. This is a thriller/action movie, regardless of the negative reviews from predominantly right-wing US reviewers.
What I find particularly hilarious is that the same people will eat up the garbage of 13 hours and American Sniper as 'factual' because it suits their own political agenda, but decry anything that even remotely goes against that with the usual whining of 'Anti- American'. Here's a thought. Don't invade a sovereign nation illegally under false motives and people won't despise your nation for doing so.
The movie itself is a well acted, scripted affair. I didn't actually notice the 'hand camera shakiness' until I started reading negative reviews on here. Apparently, I, like many other adults, are capable of following the movements of other human beings on the screen without them being tied to a rail. Who'da thunk it?
Gritty, confusing and twisted sums up the storyline and Damon delivers once again. Greg Kinnear delivers his usual double-dealing politician role with gusto and Brendan Gleeson nails the image of the cynical, world-weary spook.
Special mention must be made of Khalid Abdalla or 'Freddy'. He brings a poignant humanity to the movie with his ex-military Iraqi character, interested only in the welfare of his nation as a whole.
Naturally, many will decry this as 'left wing propaganda', but we've been over that already. Make your own mind up. Do a bit of research about the joke that was the US intelligence effort prior to 2003. Watch the movie. Realise the debacle that Bush's war was and then tell me who's at fault.
The Patrol (2013)
A War Film that gives a different view.
Considering the low budget of the film, the Patrol does a sterling job of showing the various emotions, conflicts and actions that can occur during war.
For those decrying the film as garbage, I wonder if that 'knowledge' is based on how many hours you've clocked up on COD or how many times you've seen 13 Hours.
One reviewer attempts to suggest the SA80 is a wonderful rifle as one Private routinely bitches about it during the course of the film.
Apparently, said reviewer knows more about the quality of the firearm than Ian V Hogg, one of the foremost experts in the field of small arms.
"Soon after being adopted for service, problems began to surface:
the first five years of this rifle's service have been disastrous. A number of manufacturing defects showed up in service conditions, and it was not until the closure of the RSAF at Enfield and the setting up of an entirely new production line, with new computer- controlled machine tools, at the new RSAF Nottingham, that the quality of the production weapons began to improve. It will take some time for the poor reputation gained by the initial issue weapons to be overcome; the only consolation is that the same sort of thing has happened to other military rifles in the past, and they have managed to live down their early reputation and prove their innate reliability. It is to be hoped that the L85A1 will do so as well."
A quote from the reviewer: "So if the SAS don't use a certain weapon it must be rubbish ? Not sure if that's good yardstick to judge something with". The SAS weren't alone. The Pathfinder company of the Parachute Regiment and Brigade Patrol Group of the Royal Marines also ditched the firearm in preference to M16 based platforms.
As for the SAS being a 'good yardstick'. The answer to that one is quite firmly "yes, actually". Britain's premier counter-terrorist, long range patrol & other special operations tasked unit might actually know a little of what they're talking about.
As mentioned by the unit's Lieutenant, the later A2 modification saw a quantum leap in reliability, although the weapons this unit are using are quite obviously earlier versions complete with their reliability issues.
The same reviewer feels the action is reminiscent of Vietnam rather than Afghanistan. Really? What a surprise. An unpopular counter- insurgency conflict where the lines of battle blur more often than sunsets.
As for the fractured cohesion of the unit. Is there any real wonder? Paratroopers, Royal Marines & Territorial Army soldiers mixed in within one patrol? A recipe for problems in anyone's book.
I suspect if you're after a 'ooh rah' war movie, watch something starring John Wayne or Michael Dudikoff, not something that might actually be based in some sort of reality.
Iron Sky (2012)
Iron Sky delivers
A brilliant B-movie with inspired content and direction.
Some reviewers seem a little miffed at it's popularity, resorting to the favourite 'negative review' comment of 'fake reviewers'.
Really? Are you that butthurt that people like something you don't? Guess you thought 'Moon' by Sam Rockwell was a cult classic?
I wonder if the caricature of Caribou Barbie offended some reviewers?
Back to the title though, excellent execution, intriguing storyline and cute moments from all characters. If you've got a sense of zany or, like me, are a fan of alternate history, this comes highly recommended.
Ex Machina (2014)
Ex Machina - Classic cerebral sci fi.
Ex Machina is a well written and directed movie with some truly stunning visual effects that touches on some fairly relevant concepts regarding morality and AI advancement.
Plenty of negative reviews seem to fall into one of three categories:
1 - Just didn't like the movie. This appears to be the lowest number of reviews. (Genre, concept, execution, etc)
2 - Seemed to have a preconceived bias and by comments either didn't watch the film or only saw snippets. A moderate number of reviews.
3 - Seemed to follow an agenda with similar issues to 2. The highest number of negative reviews.
Why is it that movies when receiving negative reviews routinely see the reviewer suggesting that IMDb (or the reviewers therein) are being paid to give positive reviews? Are people that paranoid that their own blinkered viewpoint isn't validated so there's automatically a conspiracy to say something positive about a movie they didn't like?
Amusing, annoying and a facet, unfortunately, of social media.
One little note... If you're going to take time moaning about the quality of a movie and then finish with "well, shucks, at least ya'll saw plenty of purty Alaskan wilderness", do everyone a favour and google the bloody thing. It was filmed in Norway.