FilmWeekUK Reviews

The Hooligan Factory (2014)

Third-rate, unfunny script from the usual ex-East Enders suspects

[3/10 · 20 July 2014]

A week ago, just prior to the DVD/Blu-Ray release, this film had an average score of 7.1 on IMDb. Less than a week later, once people other than friends of the cast and crew have had a chance to actually see it, the average score is down to 5.1 I'd be very surprised if it doesn't sink a lot lower once more people watch it and start voting.

Note to self: in future check the number of votes before buying in to scores shown on IMDb as a good way to find under-rated gems on Blu-Ray! 7.1 for a movie I wouldn't give a 4 to!

It's interesting that Danny Dyer (who appears in the opening scene) and Ian Lavendar don't appear on the IMDb credits - are they too embarrassed to be associated with the end result? Dyer isn't even mentioned on the packaging - has his stock really fallen so low that they have to remove mention of him to avoid damaging sales?

The real problem here is the script. It's like something your mates would put together at school. Lead actor/director and co-writer Nick Nevern clearly has some talent - because the results are well-paced, stylish and convincingly (for the most part) decently acted - but script writing isn't one of them. I smiled twice during the whole movie (which, to be honest, is more than I expected given "the usual suspects" involved in this) but when the best "joke" is the white hero thinking his black son by a white wife is an "apple that doesn't fall far from the tree" it's obvious that whatever comedy is involved is all pretty jaded and desperate.

Ultimately you have to congratulate the marketing folk behind this. 7.1 on IMDb and the title is well stocked in the supermarkets in the week of release. When only two titles at most get the luxury of supermarket distribution in a week where some pretty good bona-fide films have been released, they've done incredibly well at grabbing an available slot. The asking price of £9.99 for the Blu-ray (including embossed slipcover) when most titles debut at £13 without a slipcover and £15 with a slipcover hints at the compromises that had to be made to persuade Sainsbury's et al to run with it.

But it's a depressing state of affairs when energy is being wasted on third-rate rubbish like this to the detriment of far better movies with far better talent involved (if you like East Enders you'll like this as the cast is mainly out-of-work former East Enders actors, all of whom presumably voted on here to get that 7.1 rating that the title had the day before it was released).

F (2010)

Great trailer. Truly Dire Film

[2/10 · 12 January 2011]

In "the making of" on the DVD the writer/director claims it took him 2 years to write the script. One can only conclude that he lost most of it and ran out of money before he'd finished shooting it.

The acting and horror are all at "Hollyoaks" level. This mess lasts a pitiful 75 minutes including titles AND HAS NO ENDING.

A school is attacked by hoodies except the hoods are completely pitch black with nobody inside. And you're never going to find out who they were or what their motive was because the film just ends.

Complete dreck and a waste of time. Even the digital grading has been messed up - it's a green/yellow mess.

The Incredible Hulk (2008)

You've seen it done better a million times before

[5/10 · 9 June 2008]

Unlike the other reviewers here I was REALLY disappointed with this film. Admittedly I felt similarly disappointed after seeing Ang Lee's take on the big green monster - but that was my fault for having "traditional" expectations going in. That earlier film improved with subsequent viewings, and at least had a sense of originality going for it.

I'm a fan of Ed Norton's work, and so was looking forward to his take on things, particularly when it was announced he was writing the script and would be concentrating on the Banner character and his inner psyche.

Alas, the endless reports of a troubled shoot, culminating with Norton's name being removed from the writing credits of the film earlier this week by the WGA set off alarm bells that have proved all too true.

This is a lazy, formulaic, 'do it by numbers' mess of a superhero film. It's not a patch on "Iron Man" which was Marvel's first "in house" production, and it suffers terribly when compared to that offering. When the standout sequence is a rehash of the rooftop scene already done (and to much better effect) in Bourne Ultimatum you know you're in trouble.

Ed Norton is, unfortunately, totally miscast in this take on Bruce Banner. He's far too bland to command leading man status. The action scenes are tired and lifeless, with poor fire FX and some terrible "eye line" work on the CGI. Only the end scene fight between The Hulk and The Abomination look vaguely convincing. And it's the sort of fight scene that we've seen endless times before in other, better superhero movies.

Other missteps include having Mr Blue (Samuel) playing everything for laughs, and the complete lack of a proper ending. The fight scene ends and then the makers don't know what to do. In fact the ending is so bad they end up having to add the same coda they added to "Iron Man", but this time before the credits. Lame, lame, lame! Kids will enjoy this, and I guess it's truer to the comic book than Ang Lee's take was. But really it just comes across as a "between series" TV episode expanded out with a movie budget. There's nothing new here and Bill Bixby did it better on TV.

I'd be surprised if there's a sequel. And if there is I hope it's a whole lot better than this mess.

300 (2006)

Awesome, breath-taking film.

[9/10 · 15 February 2007]

I somehow missed the hype on this one, and the trailer really didn't excite me, but I got a chance to see an advance screening and the other reviewer here who said "It blew me away" hit the nail right on the head.

I generally hate going to the cinema - preferring to wait until the DVD or HD-DVD are available because I'm fed up of shoddy prints, poor sound systems, ignorant members of the public with their ringing phones, late arrivals, noisy popcorn etc. My home system is so much better. But not for this movie! It needs to be seen on the big screen (preferably an Imax - I'm hoping to catch it a second time on IMAX) with a good sound system. The images are consistently breath-taking, the sound is staggeringly good and note-perfect throughout, and Gerard Butler is barely recognisable as the guy from "Dear Frankie" (a great, under-rated movie) and "Phantom of the Opera".

Highly recommended. I've given it a 9, and I don't think I've given a movie that high a score for over a year (and I average about 6 movies a week). This makes "Gladiator" look like a cheap kid's cartoon.

Hard Candy (2005)

Beautifully crafted Hitchcockian Psychological Thriller

[9/10 · 10 December 2006]

What's not to like about this film? Everything about it shouts "perfectionism", whether we're talking acting, design, dialogue, direction or cinematography. A film that is primarily two talking heads sounds like a recipe for disaster, but David Slade opens it out and delivers a cinematic masterpiece. It's rare to have a film that keeps you on the edge of the seat throughout, manages to deliver an unexpected ending that has you going "whaaaaaaaaaat?" but which manages to tie things up nicely while leaving you with plenty of questions to discuss around the water cooler.

More importantly there's no "cheat" ending as there is with similar taut psychological fare like "Flightplan" (where the denouement is just plain silly). The film is wholly consistent throughout. Very much like Hitchcock's "Psycho", a second viewing of the film shows just how cleverly the director has performed his sleight of hand to misdirect you, without resorting to any kind of cheating. The use of long lenses, close-ups, transitions and music all turn what could have been a worthy-but-dull "theatrical" piece into something truly cinematic. In many ways the film's basic plot is very similar to "The 24th Day" (another excellent film) but the director and his team take the source material to a higher level so that this feels more worthy of the title "masterpiece" than the previous offering.

The two central performances are nothing less than outstanding. Patrick Wilson deserves far more recognition than he's received so far for this performance, and shows again (see "Angels of America" or "Phantom of the Opera" or "Little Children" for other examples of his work) what an incredibly versatile actor he is. Ellen Page amazingly for a 19 year-old shows herself to be his equal when it comes to acting chutzpah, showing just what a waste of talent her more high-profile performance in X-Men III is.

Highly recommended!

Everything Is Illuminated (2005)

Quirky, laugh out loud funny, moving, unique - just see it!

[9/10 · 31 March 2006]

This nearly passed me by, and I suspect has passed a lot of people by, which is nothing short of a crime. In a world of Hollywood "me too" clones movies like this remind me of why movies got me so excited in my youth. I can't believe this wasn't Oscar nominated in most of the main categories. It's quirky, original, funny and moving - all at the same time. An amazing directorial debut from actor Liev Schreiber - he is clearly a talent to look out for. I've seen some great movies this year but this is my pick of the crop. The cinematography is wonderful. The cast are perfect. The music is perfectly matched to the story and visuals. I really can't fault it in any way (and believe you me that's not something I'd ever envisaged myself writing!). I was expecting a slightly dull art house movie, but instead found a wonderful life-affirming gem of a movie. You'll laugh. You'll cry. But you'll be glad you saw it. Highly recommended!

Eating Out (I) (2004)

Cute lead can't save dire acting in a really dire movie

[1/10 · 25 March 2006]

How on earth did this get an average score on IMDb of over 6 (at the time of writing)? Where to start with why it's so dire? The "acting" and dialogue are worse than that in the average porn movie (if you've ever seen a porn movie you'll know what I mean).

The direction is appalling - there are so many scenes where you can see the actors freezing waiting for either the next line from one of the other characters or their director to yell "Cut". It's like watching the rehearsal of a bad stage production designed to "project" to an audience that just happens to have been filmed.

There is no "chemistry" between any of the characters.

The male "muscle Mary" lead, who admittedly has more charisma than most of the rest of the "actors" put together, and is very easy on the eye should NEVER have been cast as a "straight" lead. One certainly doesn't believe for a fraction of a second he is "in love" with the fag hag who he is supposed to have fallen for. Cast him as someone in love with himself and you might have a movie that walks.

And the script, while containing some witty and "daring" (yawn!) bitchy one liners is insulting in its depiction of stereotypes. The plot strands are so ridiculous they become funnier than anything the "comedy" writer originally intended.

The UK DVD has been deliberately "gayed down" in an attempt to shift copies, with a cover claiming this is "A modern-day variant on a Shakesperean comedy". No - it's a diabolically bad amateur movie that will only be of interest to a gay crowd wanting to see some eye candy (who would be better off spending their money on gay porn).

To add insult to injury the UK DVD is a full-priced non-anamorphic copy that looks like it was transferred from an out-of-focus print.

Avoid!

Into the Blue (2005)

Dull, clichéd movie with only eye candy going for it

[4/10 · 25 February 2006]

There are some wonderful underwater shots in this movie and enough flesh (male and female) that if you want to watch pretty people half-undressed for 90 minutes then this is the movie for you.

If on the other hand, you want a half-decent story, good dialogue and strong acting then steer well clear. It's hard to work out whether Jessica Alba really is as bad an actress as she appears in a few scenes here, or whether it's down to the appallingly bad dialogue and script she's been given. Every cliché in the book is here - car chases, evil drug barons (oh guess what, he has a British accent!), idiot friends who get people into trouble, endless underwater fights, unbelievably moral and ethical hero who's supposedly so poor he can't rub two pennies together but turns up in every scene wearing a shiny new designer t-shirt... well you get the drift.

One expects such unbelievable nonsense from Hollywood fare I guess, but somehow the whole thing is so leaden, predictable and just plain dull I found myself wanting to press the "fast forward" button after suffering through the first hour. It's one of those movies that you feel you've already seen 100 times - only last time it was faster, slicker and more interesting! Action sequences underwater don't really work without sound, and the soundtrack constantly distracts instead of enhancing the on-screen "action".

If it's on TV with nothing else on the other stations then it might be worth a watch. If you're into beautiful flesh then it might be worth a watch if you can't find any soft porn around the house. But if you want to see a good movie look elsewhere.

Swimming Upstream (2003)

Powerful family drama well worth seeing, but nothing we've not seen before

[7/10 · 14 January 2006]

If released a good few years ago this movie would probably be up for Golden Globes and Oscars - at least for its cast and writer. But the basic theme and plotting, even if it is based on real lives, is so familiar that lacklustre reviews mean its presence has barely been detected as a tiny blip on the radar of the average movie goer. I nearly missed this one, and clearly most have.

Which is a shame.

Geoffrey Rush and Judy Davis give superb performances and have the basic material that helps them show off their talents, while newcomers (at least to the movies) Jesse Spencer and Tony Draxl provide the eye candy that should, in theory, put plenty of teenage girl bums on seats. That they, unlike say Orlando Bloom, can also act and act pretty well, is an added bonus.

The problem is we've seen it all before and it all comes over as a bit of a copy of better movies we've seen. Direction is rather pedestrian and where it tries to break out of the mould it fails (in my view). Part of the problem is the "Swimming" of the title - this isn't a movie about swimming, it's a movie about the destruction of a family and getting away from that destruction. But the swimming scenes are key to that story and here the director, in recognising that, and the problems in showing such scenes to the average viewer, takes us out of the period drama and suddenly immerses us in "24"-style split screen mode and thumping music to artificially generate excitement. This may be considered a brave, even innovative move by some, but resorting to such artificiality by using the obvious tempo of a modern music beat to get the heart pumping and throwing multiple images at the eye is usually a sign that the truth at the core just isn't really working - at least for me. Such effects cheapen the film somewhat and the effect is only exacerbaged by the movie's biggest mistake - the clichéd use of an overused classical piece of music (don't know the name - I keep wanting to say 'Barber's Adagio for Strings' as was used in 'Platoon' but I don't think it's that!) suddenly used at the crucial final scene between the central character and his father. Oh dear! Lose three points for originality and taking the 'make it cloying, and sentimental by poking the audience with a stick' route!

A real shame because this is a VERY GOOD movie, well worth 90 minutes of anybody's time just for Rush's performance alone, it's just not a GREAT one.

The final, and sadly captionless, image of the two brothers 'good luck' hand shake frozen freeze-frame over the 'where are they now' messages at the end of the movie provide the saddest coda of all (albeit one touched on more by the deleted scenes on the DVD and the comment made at a screening by Fingleton that he and his brother have not spoken since) stays with you after the movie is over.

Recommended and well worth a viewing/purchase on DVD, but in some ways a missed opportunity at greatness.

King Kong (2005)

Somewhere in here there's a great 90 minute movie

[3/10 · 13 January 2006]

What a self-indulgent mess of a movie! Jackson needs to realise that sometimes less is more.

There's some breath-taking stuff in here but it gets lost in endless repetition (we got it the first time Peter, why hammer it home again and again and again), hammy over-acting (from Jack Black playing his usual irritating persona), and some truly cringe-making dialogue.

But it's the repetition that galls the most - the endless replaying of the same moments, as if the assumption is the audience are so think they can't be shown something once to "get" it, they have to be shown it again.. and again... and again.

The effects sequences alternate between breath-taking (the sunset shots) and appalling (the ridiculous never-ending brontosaurus chase is one of the worst pieces of blue screen I've seen in a movie - in the world's sixth most expensive movie ever made it's pretty unforgivable). Naomi Watts gives a great performance but the poor dear is given very little to work with other than "let's do that again". How often do we need to be shown that the ape's fallen for the girl (literally in one of the most saccharine unnecessary scenes in a movie ever where Kong and his girl go ice-skating).

There are plot holes all over the place (particularly with the Jamie Bell storyline) where lines don't make sense, presumably because Jackson has struggled to cut his six hour movie down to anything resembling a reasonable running time. This appears to be trait common to all Jackson's movies in their theatrical releases - remember the sudden inexplicable disappearance of the main baddie in two of the three LOTR movies (Saruman), the lack of any explanation of how the unrequited love between Aragorn and Eowyn that had been built up over two movies got resolved, the confusing narrative and explanation of the hero's wife's death in The Frighteners etc etc).

It's clear that while Jackson is excellent at getting the best in the industry to work with him on sets, miniatures, costume, music and cinematography, one thing Jackson just can't do is sensibly edit a movie. Please someone find him a good editor, or at least an editor that will be allowed to do his job and not have to wait until the day before delivery (much too late in the process) for the director to make his editing choices! (Watch the recently DVD-issued extended cut of The Frighteners and its director's commentary for classic examples of key plot elements cut from the theatrical release that turned a great movie into a less than good one)

Alas, we live in an age where utter dross like "Revenge of the Sith" pulls in millions and even the so called critical film magazines will, even as they point out the wooden acting, dreadful dialogue, lack of plot, will still tell everyone to go see it. Hype works and movie-goers seem to just want vacuous popcorn fare and endless eye-candy. The only possible explanation for the high rating of this movie is that the eye candy has won out over all sensible criteria when critquing a movie. MTV has a lot to answer for!

For me this film lasted 3 hours but it felt like 5, and what's more annoying than all the weaknesses I've ranted about above is that somewhere in this whole overlong mess is a 90 minute movie that would have been in my Top 5 of the year, instead of my "Worst 5 of the year" as this self-indulgent three hour mess is (and I've seen a LOT of movies this year!)

Brokeback Mountain (2005)

A movie that's hard to forget

[9/10 · 8 January 2006]

My initial thoughts on leaving the cinema were of slight disappointment given all the "hype". Despite attending a "preview" screening before the new year (in the UK where the movie has only just been released) the screen quality was poor (dusty and out of focus). I'd also expected more "chemistry" between the two leads but with the benefit of hindsight I guess I was just expecting more overt "gay"ness, which really isn't what this movie is about.

In the two weeks since I saw it, the subtleties of it keep coming back to haunt me and the little touches that are all the way through it suddenly come back to me. I've come to realise that the chemistry between the two leads is there and true to the characters. The movie is over two hours long and as someone who is still complaining about the three hours of my life wasted watching King Kong that I'll never get back (there was a really good 90 minute movie in there somewhere that got lost in poor dialogue and over-indulgence and some pretty ropey effects work) that isn't something I'd regard as a good thing normally. 90-100 minutes is as longs as should be needed to tell a story. But this movie is different. It takes its time, particularly in the first hour, but that's what makes it so powerful in the second half. It leaves you wanting more, looking at your watch wondering where the time went.

The acting is superb from ALL those involved, minor and major characters, but if I had to single out any actor I'd agree with those who think this is a "career best" performance for Ledger as Ennis. He is outstanding, and bear in mind this is a comment coming from someone who'd dismissed the actor because of what appeared to be rather homophobic remarks he'd made about not being gay himself.

If this movie doesn't win a whole bunch of Oscars for direction, for acting, for the score, for the cinematorgraphy.... there's no justice in the world.

Bottom line: It's not a "feel good" movie but it's one that you won't forget. Go and see it!

NB: Unlike the other ecstatic reviewers I've given it a 9 rather than a 10 (10 means it just couldn't have been any better, but I thought the ageing of the characters wasn't very convincing which marked it down). Don't let that lack of a 10 put you off. I generally wait for a movie on DVD but I went to the cinema to see this and despite the poor viewing experience because of the poor cinema facilities I will probably go and see it again before the DVD comes out (but at a different cinema). Until I saw this "Crash" was my favourite movie of 2005. "Crash" just became my second favourite movie of 2005. Enough said!

Doctor Who (2005–2022)

A curate's egg - when it's good it's the best, but when it's bad it's the pits!

[15 May 2005]

Maybe I've just believed too much of the hype, but really as a long-time Dr Who fan (I have a full-size dalek in my lounge) and Russell T Davies fan ("Queer as Folk" was brilliant), I've been mostly disappointed by the episodes broadcast so far.

The opening episode was a shambles of poor special FX, weak jokes (burping dustbins, for God's sake!) and a rushed "Tron" rip-off ending that thanks to appalling editing and jumping around just confused what should have been a very simple conclusion. Initial thoughts: All that money and they couldn't write a decent or scary script? The second episode was even worse. Great set and aliens, but without a good story why waste all that money? In the year five billion we're expected to believe that not only is a Kylie Minogue record supposed to be considered "a classic" but also a Britney Spears one from the same year too??!! And all for what? Just so that Russell T Davies can set up a rather weak joke when a Wurlitzer "antique" is wheeled out and called "an ipod"!! Please, if you want to do weak jokes Russel become a stand-up and leave Dr Who to those who understand that it's about telling great stories and scaring the kids.

Even worse than the weak jokes and far too obvious political correctness is the fact the doctor has been turned into an invincible hero. He lets someone die trying to stop some rotating fans so he can stop an auto-destruct sequence and then just walks through them anyway? Give me a break! Where's the consistency or the "hero" element or the "oh no! the doctor might die!" element? His companion wants to phone back billions of years back in time and in just a couple of seconds he produces a bit of plastic from his pocket that just happens to replace a mobile phone battery and turn it into something that can talk back across time and space. This isn't believable.. or funny... or even clever at some sort of level of poking fun at the franchise - it's just dreadful writing and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of who Doctor Who is and what the success of his longevity on our TV screens is about.

This lack of understanding of who The Doctor is gets worse with the (otherwise excellent) dalek episode when it takes the dalek to point out that the Doctor could be a dalek himself with his rampant hatred of his enemy. Desperate to destroy his subdued and incapacitated enemy all continuity of the Dr Who character is thrown out of the window and he's been turned into a gurning monster worse than Hitler instead of the 'human' character we've had for over 20 years in the past (Tom Baker's doctor actually couldn't destroy the race when they were far more evil than the poor specimen presented here).

Dr Who was always original, but here even the logo is a cheap knock-off, as is the inside of the TARDIS (both stolen from Farscape). All that money and the wobbly sets may have gone but better CGI work should have been possible and stronger scripts after all this time. And the incidental music is the worst I've heard on a TV series for many, many years.

I hate to point fingers at who's responsible for these serious failings, but with the airing of Mark Gatiss "The Unquiet Dead" (possibly the best Doctor Who episode ever - clearly Gatiss "gets" Doctor Who) it becomes clear where the problem is - Russel T Davies. His written episodes are too obsessed with being clever with poor jokes (don't get me started on the farting aliens that showed up around episdes five and six - not funny the first time and certainly not funny after the tenth repetition of 'the joke') than with putting together a consistent plot or a 'hide behind the sofa' story. I'd hoped for better, given Russel's pedigree on other TV dramas.

All that being said, I find myself tuning in each week and enjoying aspects of the show more than I did when the series really was dire (the Davison era onwards to be honest). On the positive side, the money generally shows where it needs to despite the poor CGI work - on the screen. Ecclestone, who I thought wrong for the part, actually makes a brilliant doctor (although I'm afraid I agree with those who say the actor should never have been allowed the part if he wasn't prepared to commit to more than 13 episodes) and even the annoying Billie Piper impresses in her role as his companion.

When writers other than Davies are let loose on the show it really flies, and it's to be hoped that more of the better writers w- those who understand that Who is about telling great stories and frightening the kids - will be hired for the second series. More of "the mess" that appears to constitute a typical Davies-written episode won't make the series a long-term success. The initial enthusiasm and good will for something so quintessentially British being back on our screens will fade away and there's a risk the viewing figures will mean that this becomes another "Enterprise" if the scripts don't improve.

The Phantom of the Opera (2004)

Excellent movie of a poor rock-opera

[8/10 · 15 May 2005]

Phantom of the Opera is typical of the latter output of Andrew Lloyd Webber - lazy and derivative, with a single melody being repeated over and over and over again to the point that you're climbing the walls desperate for the continual repetition to stop. I loved "Jesus Christ Superstar" but with "Evita" the usual Lloyd-Webber formula started to set in: repeating the song melody for each "new" track and merely change the lyrics, the tempo or the sex of the singer to disguise the fact you couldn't be bothered to write more than one or two tunes for your latest rock opera album. The rot started to set in with "Evita" but with "Phantom of the Opera" the formula is taken to its most ridiculous extremes. One song and a strong repeated riff does not a musical make!

I saw the stage show some years ago and thought it was one of the most miserable theatrical experiences of my life - little to no plot and that wretched song sung over and over and over for the best part of three hours. Lots of dry ice and an over-the-top crashing chandelier gimmick do not make for a fantastic evening's entertainment. 'Dumbed down for the masses' is far too kind an expression for this sort of tosh, and yet audiences who've ignored far better musical work seemed to lap it up. I just didn't get it!

So I approached this DVD expecting very little.

What a surprise! With lots of dialogue and new music the 'single song' of the original work is nowhere near such an obvious flaw in the original work. The cinematography is gorgeous, the direction flawless, the sound amazing, and the acting excellent. OK, so it IS rather ludicrous that the so-called 'disfigured' phantom of the opera is so sexy and obviously good looking, and also that as the main character his singing voice is by far the weakest here. But that's a minor quibble - this is a major motion picture of a musical after all. The film is a stunning visual treat and on DVD the crystal-clear picture and DTS surround sound show the medium off to great effect.

What I expected to be a chore (watching this on DVD) turned out to be a treat. I'm surprised the critics were so Luke-warm about it.

8/10

The 24th Day (2004)

Quality acting and interesting script save low budget movie

[7/10 · 21 December 2004]

The other reviews have pretty much said it all, although I expected a little more from this given the rather over-the-top ecstatic reviews (certainly I expected more than the one plot 'twist' I got just over half way through - one that had already been revealed to me on the blurb on the back of the DVD).

One can argue it's a homophobic piece or one can argue entirely the opposite, but one can't argue that it's a well scripted, well paced and well acted movie that is worthy of 90 minutes of anyone's time in the world of Hollywood formulaic drama that dominates the mainstream. There isn't, truth be told, a lot of plot here, but what little there is turns out to be surprisingly gripping, thanks to the superb job of both the actors who are never less than totally believable in their roles.

I was amazed to read one 'review' here that just appeared to be a spiteful attack on the perceived commercial success of James Marden's acting career - just because he's easy on the eye is no excuse for slating a performance that most actors would be envious of as a career best. Well worth a viewing!

Capturing the Friedmans (2003)

Extraordinarily powerful documentary that's a 'must see'

[24 July 2004]

I frequently check imdb to see if a movie/DVD is worth getting. In this case the rave reviews in the magazines (with no spoilers) were enough to persuade me to give this one a go, even though it looked like it was going to be one of those movies you really had to work watch for its "worthiness" rather than because you wanted to. I'm glad I didn't read the imdb reviews first because there are way too many spoilers in the reviews which will colour the experience of seeing this documentary. There are no spoilers in this review but if you are thinking of seeing the movie I'd say, stop right there and just go and watch it before reading other reviews that might give too much away.

I'm not a huge documentary fan, but this was gripping from the start. The general story, of a family torn apart by accusations of paedophilia, is probably well known from all the mainstream reviews already published. What makes it so powerful is the way the viewer is subjected to one twist after another through the story as it unfolds, which in my case, at any rate, had me railing against the two sides of the debate one minute, and the other side the next. I don't want to say any more than that other than if you get a chance "See this!". The films transcends the controversial subject matter and skillfully manipulates the viewer first one way, then the other forcing us to face up to our own prejudices and assumptions. It's arguably the most powerful movie I've seen this year (and I've seen a lot).

Highly recommended!

Pitch Black (2000)

Predictable but above average sci-fi thriller

[7/10 · 3 June 2001]

Despite the limited budget the makers managed to pull off a film that had me on the edge of my seat wondering what was going to happen next. Comparison with movies like "Alien" are inevitable, but this is different enough to warrant investigation. The characters were all fundamentally flawed and irritating in their own ways but then life's often like that! The aliens were handled well - getting better with each appearance. Acting and cinematographic effects were excellent and the ending wasn't quite as predictable as I'd expected. Recommended.

Pitch Black (2000)

Predictable but above average sci-fi thriller

[7/10 · 3 June 2001]

Despite the limited budget the makers managed to pull off a film that had me on the edge of my seat wondering what was going to happen next. Comparison with movies like "Alien" are inevitable, but this is different enough to warrant investigation. The characters were all fundamentally flawed and irritating in their own ways but then life's often like that! The aliens were handled well - getting better with each appearance. Acting and cinematographic effects were excellent and the ending wasn't quite as predictable as I'd expected. Recommended.

Ian

Pearl Harbor (2001)

Cliched and schmalzy, but nowhere near as bad as Titanic!

[7/10 · 2 June 2001]

The plot's thin and predictable. The history laughable. But the movie is nowhere near as bad as many of the critics have made out. The cinematography is stunning. The central war scenes amazing (not as good as Private Ryan but overall I felt this was a better film!) The acting is nowhere near as bad as some of made out (although it's a shame that the humour of the Affleck character at the start of the movie seems to get dumped for no apparent reason after initial scenes have been set). And the music is so catchy I found myself browsing the local record store straight after the movie for the soundtrack.

I certainly didn't come out of the movie feeling "that was a waste of a tenner". Which is more than can be said for many recent Hollywood releases.

Red Planet (2000)

Great FX can't disguise unbelievably dull movie with no plot

[3/10 · 1 June 2001]

I loved the sound and picture but ultimately felt this movie was a complete waste of time.

None of the characters were painted in any kind of detail, making it impossible to identify with them in any way. The only attempt at a "plot" was to introduce a malfunctioning robot, a somewhat cliched homage to 2001 Space Oddessy or what? Ultimately, the movie goes nowhere - it's eye candy but incredibly dull eye candy that just becomes one big yawn about half an hour in when you realise it's not actually going to ever go anywhere.

Frankly, the state of affairs where plotless junk like this can attract stars who just don't get any opportunity to act, and can somehow elicit big budgets for special FX that do nothing to the movie, epitomise all that is depressing about the state of Hollywood's output at the moment.