Reviews

9 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
Disappointing
2 May 2021
This movie is nowhere near the 1975 13 part tv series; which followed the legend, and what is known about Ben Hall, pretty closely. I had to watch this film in two parts because it was excruciatingly boring. Please, please, somebody re-air the 1975 tv series.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Favourite (2018)
4/10
This could have been a great movie - if only . . .
26 January 2019
Much hype preceded this movie; as in common with most films, the diction in some areas leaves much to be desired. I am not deaf, but it seems to be a trend for the past number of years, for the so-called background music to blot out the dialogue. It really should be there, if at all, between dialogue, not in competition with what is being said. Some years ago, a director informed me, tongue-in-cheek, that the music overrides poor script. On the plus side, the photography was good, and the acting was fine, but why spoil all this good work in the cutting room. Directors and producers should be aware of this when viewing the final edit before release.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Man of Steel (2013)
4/10
Super mega disappointment
2 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The actors were great. The special effects were superb; BUT, there was overkill! Too much repetitive destruction and the scenes were too long! There is only so much noise and repetition a body can stand. if it was cut to half its length it may not have been too bad. It does NOT remotely compare to the Christopher Reeve movie AND, that did NOT compare to the original 1948 Kirl Alyn serial. That serial - without the multi-fantastic special effects - is still the best. See it if you can. Even the super costume looked like it belonged to someone else - Spiderman maybe; it just didn't look right. The movie was a great disappointment.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Charming comedy - still entertaining today!
29 November 2005
I had the good fortune recently, to acquire an English language VHS copy of this rare 1951 movie; marketed then in the U.K. as; 'Mr. Peek-a-Boo'. My memory did not deceive me. It is still as entertaining today as it was when I first saw it in the cinema during the early 1950's. The originality of the movie holds well and seems to retain much of certain present day lost moralities. I give this very watchable film all the marks. The special effects are certainly not lost by todays cinematic standards. It's a great pity that movies like this seem to remain too long on the shelf. Actress Joan Greenwood and French comedy actor Bourvil, make you believe that a man can actually walk through walls. The superb supporting cast completes the illusion. Look out for it if you can.l
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
King Arthur (2004)
Rubbish. The worst Aurtherian movie made to date!
5 December 2004
I have just seen the so-called directors cut. Why bother. The movie begins with the words; - 'The true story' - What rot! There is NO TRUE story. It is; LEGEND, brought about firstly by Geoffrey of Monmouth from hand-me-down Celtic folk-lore and elaborated upon centuries later in a book by Sir Thomas Mallory. There is not even a mention in the Saxon Chronicles of this so-called famous warrior although such a person may well have existed.

Mallory's tale had a purpose, a message, but this movie had nothing to offer but a boring storyline and wooden acting with a dash of Hollywood schmultz - YUK. Totally inaccurate historically. Some scenes were poorly photographed - obviously done by a hand-held camera, my young grandson could have done it better. The battle on thick ice was imaginative but in England? Do me a favour! No army would risk crossing a frozen lake when they could go round the edge - now if it were in Russia, that would be different.

I am afraid there is nothing to salvage in this movie - such a waste.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Delightful variety movie
14 March 2003
I first saw this movie in the early fifties. It reflects a time when entertainment was performed without so much need for sexual innuendos and foul language. It entertained. I would love to see the movie again and would certainly appreciate a video copy but sadly none are available, are they?
0 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Chicago (2002)
Does not live up to the hype!
13 March 2003
What a disappointment! An award winning movie that failed to deliver. Am I alone in this? As a musician I found the songs immemorable - they all sounded too alike, nothing catchy. The patchy fantasy storyline put me in mind of 'Pennies From Heaven' but 'Chicago' is just not in the same league. In case I was missing something, I forced myself to go the distance and watch it through to the end. It has put me off seeing the London show. It's a two star movie!
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Absolutely superb!
13 March 2003
What a great un-hyped non-Hollywood movie that seems to have received little acclaim. It deserves all ten stars - twelve if possible.A romantic drama and a history lesson all in one without being sloppy or pretencious. The interest does not flag.The characters splendidly portray this untold story of how their type were treated in the dark times of oppression and war. A must see for everyone.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A good story ruined
8 March 2003
The makers would have been well advised to see Korda's 1939 version starring John Clements, or Anthony Steel's Storm Over the Nile.This latest effort should never have been made! It would be totally unrecognisable except for the use of the feathers. Political correctness added a new hero when there was only room for one. Dated slow motion action scenes made things worse. Men hiding in the sand was borrowed from 1960,s spaghetti westerns - I could go on but I won't. The movie doesn't hold a candle to the 1939 version in any shape or form. The director should go back to being an accountant!
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed