hendry-robert Reviews

The Avengers (2012)

Dumbed down irrelevant nonsense

[2/10 · 27 January 2013]

Honestly, I like the odd superhero movie but the makers of this are like the fat kid in Willy The Wonka who has to have all the chocolate.

This production (sic) treats the entire audience as low IQ zombies (no offence to actual zombies intended). There is zero depth of character development and zero story line interest. At no time whatsoever do you ever feel a sense of suspense or danger. At no time do you care if any of the characters come to harm - well you kind of know that none of them will as their superheroes - obviously. And why even bother having humans with no super powers - Oh I forgot, the humans in it are the most magical, unbelievable fighting machines. They just stand there wasting anything in their path, and Im not talking about the super heroes here. Rambo is but a beginner compared to them.

Every single facet of this farce is totally predictable from start to finish. Its one of those where you pray your transported to another reality and the bad guys actually win.

Technically its all good except the sound department have again gone mental. The action scenes are incredibly loud and were at times quite painful on the ears (seriously) and then the speaking parts were often so whispered and muffled sounding. I'm sure during post the sound guys sit there with the best sound system money can buy - but the reality is their mix doesn't translate well across systems. Bad sound isn't the problem, its the post mixing. I hear this issue on far to many movies these days and its ruining many films.

The acting by some of the cast is decent, considering the ridiculously poor script they have to work with. But in no way will any of them be remembering their part in this movie during their twilight years. This is a money and profile job - nothing more. Even then I do have to wonder if putting your name to this is actually worth it?. The directing is amateur hour. His/her (I don't know and don't care) focus is squarely on action and FX - so why not just have the FX team direct it as they certainly would have done a better job than the lucky ducky who managed to land this lucrative job. I do wonder if the director has actually ever watched a movie to see how one directs actors?

Anyway, I cant say much more about this nonsense except if you enjoy a movie which is one long mind numbing boring action scene, aimed at a dumbed down populace - then this is for you.

PS I cannot believe this movie gained so much favourable reviews. I certainly smell a rat.

Taken 2 (2012)

This farce has to be Olivier Megatons fault.

[3/10 · 14 January 2013]

Call me a crazy nut job, but I expected so much better. I very much liked the first Taken but this really was a joke.

I think Neeson knew this film had gone pear shaped and probably gave up because you kind of sense it in some of the scenes and to be honest his acting in this was well below his usual high standard. I don't blame him at all really, and to his credit its only his his presence which sort of holds the entire thing together. The majority of blame for this joke factory (not that its funny in any way) should be laid at the directors feet. A truly awful job by Olivier Megaton - there is nothing mega about this guys effort.

On paper, the premise of the film seems fine - although rather predictable. But its surely the directors job to pour some soul and magic in to the mix and create something worthy. But he failed miserably and the result is a shameful film executed with zero pace, tension, style, or anything remotely resembling a pro job. Some blame also has to go to the script writing. Now, I don't know if Luc Besson actually wrote the script spoken by the cast, but if he did its a terrible effort from him. But then again, even with a very average script a good director could have made a half decent movie of this genre - especially considering he had the original Taken to reference and Liam Neeson to work with.

A golden opportunity has been missed here. Liams likable character had so much to offer in terms of development, but you get none of that at all. In fact his character is completely watered down. In the first instalment he reminded me as a cross between leon and James Bond but in Taken 2 he's just some bloke running around with a gun taking out the bad guys without breaking a sweat. At no time do you actually feel Liam or his family are in any real danger. Its like watching a kid playing an X box shoot em up game on very easy mode.

The question I ask my self is didn't anyone notice how bad the script, the directing or any other multitude of film making sins whilst this thing was being created? Was it to late during the early stages to make script changes, even re-do some of the plot - or better yet, sack Megaton? Didn't anyone speak up? Megaton, didn't you notice how crap a job you were doing as you played back the days filming results. Did you not notice you couldn't coax a decent performance out of any of the actors. Did you not notice you have zero ability to inspire cast or crew? Don't mean to be rude Megaton, but if you aim to make more films you seriously need to up your game (massively) or change your career.

Im not a massive film buff or know anything about the ins and outs of film making. There are far more knowledgeable people on IMDb who know the score. But what I do know is this film is crap, and even I could have directed this about a billion times better than this guy - despite never having directed a film in my life. I really should get my self on a plane to Hollywood as it seems anyone can get a directing job.

Touch (2012–2013)

Sickly, sweet, candy flossed rubbish.

[2/10 · 6 November 2012]

Hollywood knows best. They will teach you to think the right way because obviously they are just that bit more enlightened than you or I.

The kid is irritating in the extreme (obviously I mean the character not the kid in real life). Apart from his nauseating opening dialogue which runs for about five minutes and is intended to educate you in the ways of the Hollywood enlightened all he does is scream and stare at numbers. After four or five episodes I had to forward that section. The story lines are so 4th grade they really grate you. Its pointless me actually mentioning any of them. The characters are hollow. I don't care about any of them.

Sutherlands character is a total wimp. I realise he wanted to do something far removed from his Jack Bauer character but was there any need to go the opposite in the extreme.

I can only assume this rubbish appeals to 12 year old girls. Actually, thats an insult to 12 year old girls. I hear its been commissioned for a second series. I will not be watching this utterly pointless drivel.

The Beaver (2011)

Mel nails the accent!

[8/10 · 28 May 2011]

It really sounds to me like Mel Gibson has modelled the voice and the accent for the puppet on Ray Winstone which shouldn't surprise me considering they have worked together in the past. However, top marks to Mel for that one because you really could be forgiven for thinking Ray did a voice-over for the puppet.

In general this is not the usual style of film I would watch but I really must say I was most pleasantly surprised at how engaging it was. For me at least, this was down to the Beaver (yes I realise how that sounds) but the remarkable thing is that I forgot it was a puppet controlled and voiced by Mel. I really began to see it as a complete separate character and it just gave the film whole other dimension.

Performances from Gibson and Foster were excellent (as you would expect). Their acting was totally spot on, never once seeming over the top or forced. Jodie Foster has done a sterling job on the directors chair skilfully taking the viewer on a journey in what I would have thought not a particularly easy film to direct. There are some humorous moments but this is not a comedy. You will occasionally laugh, and at times you will tense up during some of Gibsons darker moments. But that is a job well done from all.

This is certainly not a film for everyone but if you like a movie that's choc full to the brim with the human element, excellent acting and directing then I really would recommend it.

Monsters (2010)

Perhaps the most boring movie ever made

[2/10 · 11 May 2011]

Producing on a budget is no excuse for something as mind numbingly boring and awful as this. I kept looking at my watch thinking something must surely happen now and until finally an hour in to the movie and the constant rambling dialogue and feast of inane scenery shots continued I had completely given up on this movie.

This movie is simply about someone with a tidy sum of money to have a nice jaunt around Mexico with a video camera at someone else's expense. Whoever put up the money for this movie should make Gareth Edwards take a job a Mcdonalds for the rest of his life and pay back the money he stole from his salary over the next 30 years

Please, for your own sanity avoid this film at all costs.

The Scientist (I) (2010)

Sound spoiled the experience

[6/10 · 27 March 2011]

I could have easily watched this all the way through had it not been for the movies sound. I cannot fathom what on earth the sound people think their doing. During quiet voice sections I was constantly having to rewind and turn the volume up to hear what the actors were saying and then turn it down during the loud music sections. Just after half way through I switched it off which was a shame because its a decent film but you need to get in to the vibe rather than automate the film with the remote control. Perhaps it was just the copy I watched?

I may pick it up again when Im in the mood and knowing what the sound is like I will be better prepared because I would have liked this movie for its interesting story.

Battlestar Galactica (2004–2009)

Worst Sci Fi series ever made

[2/10 · 25 February 2011]

I could have enjoyed this series a lot more had it not been for one character who is REALLY in your face and rammed down your throat from the very beginning to the very end. Captain Kara 'Starbuck' Thrace a highly irritating name to start with (am I 5 years old) but not as irritating as her character. Imagine a mentally unstable teen with the worst teen angst of any teen who has ever roamed the planet. Then multiply that by at least 1000 and you get Starbuck. This character is utterly selfish, me me me, its all about me! She is constantly angry, drunk, Psychotic, seriously loud, obnoxious foolish, etc. To add to that the actresses overacting really didn't help although this is nothing personal against her, she's only doing her job. I kid you not when it was obvious an episode was to be centred around her (of which there are many I'm sorry to say) I eventually began skipping those episodes completely. Don't worry, your wont miss a thing. I don't know what the producers were thinking. Did they really think this horrible one dimensional character who has not a single redeeming quality about her was something mature people wanted. This character was clearly aimed at 12 year old girls as an attempt to portray what a strong female character should be like. I very much hope 12 year old girls don't watch this and think Starbuck is what they need to be when they get older for that would be a disaster for them. There are much better stronger female characters in the show who should have been given more airtime than they received. Boomer for example.

After the middle of season 2 it rapidly went down hill. Its very difficult to put in to words what is wrong with this show because there is so much wrong with it. The continuity of the story lines for example is just pure amateur. In one episode the Chief takes up the cause for workers rights. At the end of the episode you just know this will be a new sub line for the Chiefs character. But no, its never mentioned or seen of again. There are so many examples of this nonsense it became insulting after a while. Many reviews claim it is intelligent sci fi. No its not because none of it makes you wonder about the possibilities and you could be watching anything, more specifically it could be any soap opera because this is what this series rapidly turned in to. Good sci fi makes you ponder big questions about our universe, they don't do the soap opera routine.

The religious sub-line all the way through the show was just plain weird and as the series progressed it became another turn off. A number of characters have visions all the way through the series but they are so cryptic it became obvious they were nothing more than space fillers. Boring doesn't even begin to describe those long drawn out scenes. Then there's the cutbacks to previous lives. Pile on the tedium why don't you.

Then there's the Cylons. A much more advanced and powerful race than the humans. But of course they become totally incompetent and can be beaten off by throwing a few sticks and stones. When you begin praying the Cylons would simply wipe out the humans and just go off on an adventure of their own you know there is something seriously wrong with all of the human characters and the storyline. There are a few episodes which centre around the Cylons (although not enough) and its a relief to be free from the human soap opera and of course some welcome respite from Starbuck lashing out at every direction possible.

Clearly many reviewing this show became fanatical and could see no wrong in it. My guess is they don't know what good sci fi is supposed to be about. They probably adore those daily soap operas and if that's your ticket then you may like this.

Viewers left the series in their droves. This is obvious to me why and I'm just surprised the makers managed to con the money people out of their cash for so long If you like sci fi and intelligent programming then do avoid this at all costs.

The Tourist (I) (2010)

Should have gone straight to DVD

[1/10 · 29 January 2011]

Why Angelina still gets parts in any movie is quite frankly beyond me. I can conjure up theories such as being partnered with Brad Pitt, adopting half of Africa, and being some sort of ambassador for the third world. Her standing cannot be for her acting abilities for she has none. She neither has an ounce of on screen presence, magic, whatever you want to call it.

Depp on the other hand had made many great movies and has bags of on screen magic. I'm particularly partial to his much lesser known work. I like Depp because he takes risks,and obviously cares for the art of film making. But a risk on this project has done him no favours at all. Perhaps the money was just to good to refuse, or perhaps he was concerned about being type cast as a Pirate. Who knows. But for sure he will be deeply embarrassed by this nonsense of a movie.

I feel it pointless to describe what's wrong with it. Many others have done that already. Anyone who actually likes has no clue what a good movie is.It should have gone straight to DVD and given away free with the morning newspaper.

Expect to see this movie in the bargain bin very soon.

Battle in Seattle (2007)

Appalling waste of space

[1/10 · 17 January 2011]

I had never heard of this movie until it came on the TV the other day. It would have been better if it had remained that way.

You don't get real idea of what the protesters were protesting about. Very much like the real protesters who were a mish mash of anarchists, drop-outs, ravers/party goers, manic depressives, attention seekers, show offs, chancers, and total dreamers. None of whom have any idea of reality because they cannot use logical thought processes.

Anyway, Charlize Theron spends most of the movie crying in bed ignoring her husband Woody Harrleson who plays one of the riot police officers. I had high hopes for Theron when I first saw her years ago but she sure knows how to pick bad scripts and I do think her career is suffering from it. Woody (like Theron) will have been drawn to the project because of his environmental background and on paper he must have thought it would be a good move to accept the role. He, and Theron are both lucky the movie didn't finish their careers off. Ray Liotta plays the Seattle Mayor. The Mayor seems like a decent trusting guy but is essentially betrayed by the protesters rampage. Liottas performance, as well as Theron and Harrleson were mediocre at best. I don't blame them though. Clearly the director has absolutely no idea how to coax a performance from actors and if I were to hedge a bet I would say the director was personally caught up (emotionally) due to his obvious political views. Nothing wrong with putting your case forward in a movie, but you have to do it right and provoke a reaction from the audience, make them think. This completely fails to do that. The man completely forgot he was making a movie and like most extreme leftists the idea is always better than the reality.

As you watch you will care nothing for any of the characters in the movie. Your constantly hoping something will happen, it never does because quite frankly very little actually happened in Seattle over those few days. A few protesters running around smashing windows will not give anyone the ammunition to make a full 90 minute movie.

Its quite telling that since the movies release two years ago it only has around 40 reviews on IMDb. Just goes to show that no one, not even the protesters give a damn about this movie. They are probably to embarrassed.

The favourable reviews of which there are far to many can only be from a few dreamers and those with an agenda. But seriously, pay them no attention because this is a really bad movie no matter what side of the political spectrum you come from.

Avoid at all costs.

The Last Exorcism (2010)

Another Blair Witch Thing

[3/10 · 24 December 2010]

I really cant stand movies that are misleading like this one is. A look at the DVD cover and you really think your going to be seeing a demon possessed girl running across the ceiling. This movies PR is a lie to get you to part with your money. I don't care how small the budget is, just don't lie to me. Furthermore, the last thing we need is another Blair Witch type movie. Im personally really sick and tired of them. They all remind me of me first year film student projects, just as this one did.

However, I have absolutely no complaints about the actors who add did a sterling job. Just a shame about the film

The Last Airbender (2010)

Drivel, utter Drivel...and

[2/10 · 24 December 2010]

More Drivel than you could imagine.

Whoever made this is pure 100% amateur. He/she without the supporting technical staff and large budget, isn't capable of taking a a holiday snapshot.

Its very sad to think someone hands this film maker such a large budget and expertise and they churn this awful thing out. I hear there may be sequels. Oh please no!.Do not force another episode of this junk on the human race.

This is a crime, a crime against art, and of course the human race. I suggest the negatives are destroyed, all DVDs recalled and then we can all forget this ever happened.

Avoid at all costs.

Skyline (2010)

Uncompromising Aliens - Definitely Worth Watching

[8/10 · 13 December 2010]

I like uncompromising aliens that put the world and its inhabitants in grave jeopardy and these ones certainly fit the bill.

I could easily pick holes in the movie but in all honesty there isn't many. Those faults are easily over shadowed by the movies interesting take on Alien invasion and our reaction to it.

This movie creates an emotion from the viewer and it gets you thinking after you have watched it. That to me is a job well done I give this movie 8 out of 10 because as alien invasion films go this is easily one of the best I have seen. Personally I have never bought the idea that aliens, if they ever did visit us would be benevolent creatures who would do us no harm.

Definitely worth watching!

Inception (2010)

Comedy

[3/10 · 7 November 2010]

If you must watch this caper then I would recommend you watch it as if you were watching a comedy. At least then its tolerable. As you watch just imagine the delirious brainwashed mind salivating at the infantile plot. Titter away at the scenes and dialogue they perceive as intellectually gigantic (easy to spot). Guffaw at the endless streaming dialogue intended to inform their low IQ brain what's going on (otherwise they wouldn't have a clue, guaranteed)

I have no complaints about the acting or the production in general. I do however have to complain about the annoying score which was terribly loud. At times it was so loud it was actually painful in the mid range.

The Other Guys (2010)

Farrel is excellent as usual, Wallberg, I never knew he had it in him..

[9/10 · 27 October 2010]

I really am quite a fan of Farrel. I can think of only one movie he has made I didn't care much for. When I compare Farrel to Carey there is none. Farrel is simply light years ahead of him and it must be because he writes his own material. An exceptionally talented bloke indeed.

I noticed that some reviewers even though they rate the film say its to long...Eh? Please give me another hour. Do these people have such short attention spans? Wahlberg really surprised me in this as his comedic timing was spot on. His looks of incredulous amazement at Farrels antics were often priceless. I simply didn't see the guys as a comedy actor but he absolutely shone in this paired up with Farrel.

Wahlberg and Farrel must have got on very well as the chemistry between the two is obvious and adds greatly to the enjoyment of the movie for the viewer.

I rarely ask for a sequel, but please do make another one with the same cast and while your at it add on another hour.

Pure comedy magic!

Dawn of the Dead (1978)

Enough with the social commentary clap trap! Its just a great horror!

[8/10 · 27 October 2010]

A large number of reviews seek to find some deeper meaning and hidden message in this film which is utter nonsense. Take any film, regardless of subject and content and you can conjure up a multitude of meanings and messages. Every single image and line of dialogue in any movie can be made to mean anything the po faced thinky brain wants it to. The choice of mall for the majority of the filming and stoyline was based on financial restraints as the director stated him self. There's no social commentary here about the wests addiction to materialism, racism, abortion, religion and so on. It simply made a perfect location where the filming could be done overnight and there were enough avenues for plot lines to be had in a large mall. IF there is indeed a message its about Americans and Malls. Perhaps at a push I could agree there is a slight message here, but its not overtly political. The rise of the Mall just happened to occur in the 1970's and a little research shows that there were a lot of people up in arms about them so its perhaps just a little bit of social commentary of the time period.

This movie is about how a small band of survivors hole up in a mall to survive the walking dead who feast on live human flesh. If one gets you and take a chunk out of you then you to will become a Zonbie. Best to avoid them then.

Sometimes musicians, film-makers, and artists just create work that isn't intended to have a very deep meaning. Enjoy a great classic late 1970's horror littered with black humour and don't think about it to much.

Stargate Universe (2009–2011)

Never seen Stargate before...So

[4/10 · 10 October 2010]

I have never seen any of the stargate series before so I came to this franchise completely new.

What peaked my interest was Robert Carlyle, a fine actor who rarely gets good starring roles, but when he does the man can shine. In Stargate he does on several occasions but at times I cant help feeling some of the angry and tortured emotions he displays is due to the poor story lines...

In general the casts abilities are good, but they are all let down by poor and un-engaging story lines. It has its moments but they are so appallingly sparse you begin to fantasize about some catastrophe on the ship that wipes out half the cast so that it forces the story on to another track completely. When you think like that there is a problem, and that problem is you care little for almost all of the cast. This is bad, very bad news for any film or TV show.

The only characters I care about are Carlyle, the colonel bloke, and begrudgingly the geeky game playing guy who somehow managed to find himself on an ancient spaceship because he played online games. The worst character who I really wanted to see bumped off is the Senators daughter because her presence there serves no purpose whatsoever, although she isn't alone, some of the characters I completely forget about until they turn up on screen again. But she is featured far to much in this series imho unlike the girl who plays the medic and could play a much bigger role in the series if she were given the chance. her character is believable, and she is certainly a character you could care about if she is given the story lines to work with. many of the characters are totally unbelievable. or example a real astrophysicist who found him self on an ancient space ship traveling faster than light speed would be in total awe at his predicament. But like the the majority of the crew he only wants to get home. And there's another problem. The obsession in the series and the characters with getting home is a constant through out. OK, Star Trek Voyager had this, but they had a helluva lot of interesting stuff going on and the getting home part was a side bar interest factor. You always knew by the end of the series they would get home, it was never rammed down your throat. In SGU, it is, and its off putting.

Don't get me wrong, this is not the worst show I have ever seen, far from it. But if it is to survive the writers need to get with the plan and introduce some engaging story lines and start dropping the soap opera routine. Thats the crux of the matter I believe. Its not sci, its sci fi trying to be soap opera with a hint of sci fi thrown in but this is actually what is making it fail. It misses the mark by a long mile on both accounts. The makers need to decide or abandon.

I do actually see some potential with this series if the people in charge get their act together. I believe a second series has been made but I predict if that season hasn't stepped up to the plate I seriously doubt this will make it to series 3.

I probably understand why Stargate fans are very disappointed with this even though I cant compare them. I've read some of the reviews of SG1 and Atlantis and they both have a lot more good reviews than this series. But all isn't lost yet. The makers can still redeem themselves if they go for it.

Machete (2010)

Great movie, shame about the racist film maker

[2/10 · 24 September 2010]

Let us imagine for a moment a movie that portrayed Arabs or Africans, or Chinese as racist maniacs, totally corrupt, greedy to their cores, void of any morality, capable of gunning down a pregnant mother and an accompanying child, incestuous tendencies etc. A race that is just pure evil to its very core that it ought to be stamped out, and hey that's all right jack because its just a race of Arabs, Africans, or Chinese. Do you think such a movie could be made and sent out on worldwide release? Of course not, there would be world wide cries of fowl, demonstrations, and without any doubt widespread violence.

Yet, this is exactly how Robert Rodriguez has portrayed white people, specifically white American males, and even more specifically white Texan males. This is not a parody,this is not artists vision, this is pure hate speech dressed up in a stylish, well made good VS bad B style movie which from that perspective at least is excellent.

Not a single Mexican in this movie is bad, only the white man is. The white American women are portrayed as good which was utterly predictable. I wont go in to any psycho babble as to why many liberals and people like Rodriguez have this train of thought, but it seems to me the recurring theme in the liberal mind of White Man Is Evil - White Women good, just a shame about their men. I believe it speaks volumes how they think and perceive white men. Do they feel threatened by the white races achievements over the centuries? I don't know to be honest, but something bothers them deeply about us white men, they just never come out and say it.

I really mean it when I say this is the most racist movie I have ever seen in my life. Rodriguez does neither white Americans or Mexicans any favours here, that's for sure. What he is doing is inciting racial hatred and he knows it.

The Last Seven (2011)

Just doesn't quite cut it

[5/10 · 5 September 2010]

Reading the synopsis I had quite high hopes for this movie which was rapidly vanishing after the first 15 minutes which consisted of a bloke walking around the deserted streets of London's financial district. The long drawn out fifteen minutes of nothingness may impress someone who has never walked those same central London streets at Dawn on a Sunday morning but it doesn't really work for someone who has. I got the distinct impression the makers were trying to force a point here which went way past its premise of a deserted major City. The obviousness of it had me concerned for the rest of the movie.

Eventually our lone walker meets up with a trio, and they meet up with another trio and from there on in there's a lot of long drawn out scenes with intermittent quick flash editing that was intended to scare or intrigue. Im not really sure which but it didn't work.

While I have no doubt most of the seven cast have decent acting abilities, their performances were wooden. Mind you its not as if they had anything meaty to really bounce off so those performances were really down to the directors vision. You cant just put some people in front of a camera, give them some lines and hope for magic, particularly with a movie like this which should provoke the audiences senses. Then again a number of lines in the script are quite appalling, as if they were written by a secondary school drama club. But surely the director must have known those lines were just plain bad and could have done something about them.

For me the movie just plodded along until it came to a point where I was jeering for it to end. I had twigged on quite early their particular circumstance but how it lead to that I didn't know until the very end, so I do give the makers some points for that. In general though it was a rather garbled affair. Yes, it has a sense of continuity but it wasn't glued together very well. Its a movie that may very well have looked just smashing on paper, but hasn't translated so well to the screen.

As indie movies go it is by no means the worst, far from it. Its shot quite well, does have some atmosphere, and can keep you interested. If you haven't seen something in this genre before it may well keep you very interested. But I've seen a lot of these psychological horrors flicks and this one falls short of the mark. Compared to another one I reviewed 'The Broken' now there's a movie that really gets to you on a psychological level. One of the death scenes in that movie still makes me feel uncomfortable a year after watching it. There no gore, its just incredibly moving? or disturbing? I cant really describe what it is. If The Broken cant scare you nothing will.

I cant recommend the movie and I cant not recommend it. As I said, if you haven't seen this type of flick before you may very well enjoy it.

The Twilight Saga: New Moon (2009)

Just a plain old bad movie

[3/10 · 5 September 2010]

They say this movie is aimed at teenage girls. Perhaps it is but surely this is an insult to their intelligence.

I very often can get a good laugh at a badly scripted movie, but not this one. Ironically there is a scene in the movie of three characters going to see a guns all out blazing movie. One of the characters is displayed with a look of disgust on his face as he watches the nonsense on the screen. But how come I was saying to my self I wish I was watching that one. Anything but this.

My brothers 12 year old warned me not to hire it on DVD. I should have taken her advice.

Airline Disaster (2010 Video)

This just doesn't have the class of a really bad B Movie

[1/10 · 15 July 2010]

I quite enjoy watching really bad B movies. Some are very good in a very bad way but most of all they are very funny because they are not intended to be.

If you consider Ed Woods B movies from the 50's which were truly awful but today are kind of classic for their awfulness they really are in a different league of B movie to this. Ed Wood was a little bit nutty and totally believed in what he was doing, that's what made his movies great. Anyway, in today's world it really amazes me anyone would put up the money for this utter drivel. The makers have tried to make a serious suspense movie but have failed on ever level imaginable including those you cant imagine. I couldn't watch it all. Cliché after cliché and just so utterly predictable. Highly irritating within about 3 nano seconds. If the plane had crashed and everyone died within the first five minutes of the film and then it just went on to show pictures of fake log fire for the next hour and a half I would have been satisfied. At least then there would have been a point, insulting, but a point never the less.

Please, if your going to make a B movie make it truly awful. Have the scenery falling down, when actors fluff their words, just carry on. Have the decency to respect the genre.

The Wolfman (2010)

A $150 million dollar load of Tosh

[3/10 · 9 June 2010]

The title its self "The Wolfman" pretty much gave the game away that this film would lack any imagination. Its the sort of title you would expect a bunch of 10 year olds to come up with much like some of the script which was given to some of the finest actors around. But I also had a bad feeling when I learned Benicio Del Toro was playing the role of the Wolfman. However, I thought with a cast that included Anthony Hopkins, Hugo Weaving, Art Malik and Emily Blunt I thought surely the film-makers had thought this out. But no, I was wrong, and it was worse than I could have imagined. Del Toro is a fine actor in a particular role but not this. I'm sorry to type cast him, but he did not have the depth to carry this off and it was painfully obvious. But then again with such a poorly written script and storyline there wasn't any need for his character to have depth. But it should have been. His character should have been filled with anguish and mental torture, and you should have felt and empathised with this.

There has been many Werewolf movies over the last sixty years and whilst this one was definitely in the classic mould it never the less was an extremely poor interpretation for today's modern cinema. I wasn't expecting a remake of 'An American Werewolf in London' which was a completely original take on the genre. I somehow thought it would be made in the style of "From Hell" starring Johnny Depp who played the complex Police Inspector trying to track down Jack The Ripper. Both films are set in the same Victorian period but only one had depth, emotion and an intense storyline (with a twist) and of course that was 'From Hell'. The wolfman had none of that. It was entirely predictable from start to finish. I twigged on within the first 10 minutes how it was all going to pan out.

What this story should have been was a cat and mouse game between Hugo Weaving (The Police Inspector) Anthony Hopkins and Del Toro with a hint of Malik playing the inside guy who knew everything but was loyal to his master. Blunts romantic interest role was totally predictable and it didn't take her character long to forget about her dead husband who was the brother of lawrence Talbot (Del torro). How predictable and actually a bit of an insult that were supposed to believe she would would be ready so fast to fall in to the arms of her dead husbands brother. There was no conscience or guilt displayed, it was just par for the course that the film makers decided that romantic interest was needed. Perhaps so, but couldn't it have been with Weavings character sent to investigate the killings. At least then I could have semi believed it. But no, it was a run of the mill mediocre slasher movie with a massive budget behind it and some actors filling up the space and time. Don't get me wrong. Im not blaming the actors who all did good jobs considering the script and plot, but that was the whole problem. The script and the plot. None of the actors were allowed to shine.

There really isn't much I can say. It will appeal to 12-16 year olds and people who haven't seen much movies in general. IF your expecting something with a twist, a modern retake even in the classic style then you will be disappointed.

The only good thing about this film are the London Victorian scenes which were spectacularly shot

But amazingly despite the sets, scenery, and the camera work being top notch the wolfman himself just looked like a guy running around in cheap fancy dress costume. He looks exactly like that Chubbaka character from the original Star Wars movies. I think a man changing in to wolf would not look like a semi cuddly teddy bear.

Despite the clear amount of excellent talent working on this film in front of and behind the Camera something went badly wrong. I strongly suspect the money people interfered in the project and didn't let the creatives get on with the job. Many a movie has been ruined due to background politics and I suspect this is what has happened here. As I read a little of the background it seems this films production has been on and off since 2007. I suspect they couldn't get a top notch director willing to work with such a script which probably changed time and time again and probably got a lot worse by the time they began making the film. There was no passion or heart in the making of this film. There was no sense of were making something really special here. I just absolutely felt that as I watched. Im certain that many are glad the whole thing is over and done with, just like me.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009)

3 out of Ten

[3/10 · 6 June 2010]

This film is for Terry Gillian die hards who cannot see past anything he does.

This isn't a patch on other Gillian works such as The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (a masterpiece) or Time Bandits or the obvious Python stuff. But in all honesty Gillians work since Brazil has been shady. There's been books and cartoon character puppets and various other schemes hes been involved since Brazil and of course the odd film or two but none of it has been worth a tuppence bubbly. Its like, hey Im Terry, Im just so wacky so even if I make something bad Im really just wacky and kind of cool. Its all in my wacky cool mind. Yeah, that may wash with the fans, but not people like me.

The overall performances were decent all be it a little over acted in areas. The midget who was in the Mike Myers Spy spoofs makes an appearance here and his lack of acting ability is totally apparent just in case you hadn't noticed he couldn't act even when he had no lines to speak in the Myers Spy Spoofs.

Well thats it really, a bad actor midget, and another Gillian failure.

There is much room for this type of genre and I do like them very much. But its time to move on Gillian and I'm afraid I don't hold out much hope for your next venture The Man Who Killed Don Quixote set for release in 2011. DO us all a favour and withdraw from the production gracefully.

Unthinkable (2010)

Well balanced from both points of view

[8/10 · 6 June 2010]

ALERT: This may contain spoilers but I hope to write this in a way that it doesn't. But of you have read the synopsis Im not giving anything away so its safe to read although not advised for the woolly minded.

The movie centres around one man who has planted three nuclear weapons in three US cities set to go off in less than four days and his interrogator (Samuel L Jackson)and their relationship if it could be called that.

The only obvious politically correct facet of the film was that the bad guy was an American convert to the Muslim faith and i do understand why the film-makers chose to go down that route.

However, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Its a question of what are we (or one individual) prepared to do in order to save the lives of millions no matter how distasteful those actions may be. I think you get the idea. Interrogator vs Terrorist. SJ is a no compromise Interrogator, Michael Sheen is the Terrorist and Carrie-Anne Moss plays the hand wringing conscience filled FBI agent demanding we keep our humanity intact. Needless to say she is horrified at how far SJs character will go to extract the information needed to save millions of lives. A very interesting sidebar to the story which I thought could have been put to more use was SJ's wife played by Lora Kojovic. A former Bosnian who had suffered greatly at the hands of her neighbours during the conflict and who herself was no stranger to what evil humankind kind can get up to. I thought a little more interaction between her and Carrie Ann Moss, the childless, unmarried, no partner FBI agent would have been interesting. Of course her background and experiences explained why she could be married to such a so called monster like SJ and have his children.

In my world there is no question of which is the right course of action. Only the woolly minded would actually allow millions to die instead of using any form of torture to extract the information. But torture does work, always has, and always will. The hand wringers would give the guy an ice cream, some popcorn, and some DVDs to watch hoping he would see how nice they really are and tell them where the bombs are whilst outside millions have just been vaporised as the bomber finishes off his ice cream. But as long as our good human nature is intact then those millions of lives don't matter such is the hand wringing mindset, a point made in the film by Carrie Ann Moss.

Yet, a good number of reviewers are adamant that there is no justification for torture even in such circumstances. Many here are offended at the idea of torturing one man to save millions, but quite frankly I don't believe them because they have never faced such a reality and they simply like to think their more enlightened than those of us who would advocate doing what is necessary in such a situation. But I know that if they or their families were in the zones about to be vaporised then they would be screaming at Samuel Jackson to do whatever it takes to save them and their families.

Put it another way. If one of my children was taken hostage and I found the person that had my child hidden away somewhere and was not going to give me the information to find my child there is nothing, and i mean absolutely nothing I wouldn't do to get the information out of that person to save my child. Now contrast this with millions of lives. Do you people who sit there advocating this movie is so terrible because of its content really believe that one mans lives is worth millions. Do you really believe that your humanity would remain intact if you allowed those bombs to go off because of your supposed morals. Of course it wouldn't. You would be ashamed to live the rest of your lives knowing that you advocated the death of millions of men, women , and children just so your conscience would be clear. But it wouldn't be clear. Advocating such large scale misery would haunt you for the rest of your life. In a matter of hours your morals would vanish because of the suffering and deaths of millions. One man's life would not satisfy your conscience unless you were actually a sadist.

Someday you may very well see that mushroom cloud (hopefully not to close) and see the utter devastation and misery even a very small yield nuclear weapon can do and your whole world would come crashing down and so will your perceived moral high ground. It is a fact that Russia has not only lost weapons grade plutonium they actually have a couple of nukes missing. These are well documented facts. Someone wants to get a hold of them and use them, you can be sure of that. So whilst this is currently just a fiction, I and many others who closely follow political shenanigans around the world are in no doubt its not a question of if, its a question of when.

Its a difficult movie to review without giving the story away because the premise of it is actually very simple. However, Samuel Jackson did a great performance taking on a role I would bet many wouldn't have. I enjoyed it for the very fact that there was a reasonable element of reality and both sides of the argument were represented fairly. Of course that's what's annoyed the bleeding hearts. They expected it to be fully against any form of torture but the reality is in this world good and bad people are being tortured all the time. From where I stand, as long as its the bad ones who wish me harm I can live with that

The Book of Eli (2010)

The anti Christians are out in force

[7/10 · 6 June 2010]

I really have to pity the venom spouting from the anti religionists and faith void reviewers. These people completely fail to realise that their own fanatical non belief in faith (of whatever kind) religious or not is in fact a religion its self reaching fanatical proportions in the west. They believe humankind (sic: I should say Christians) are inherently bad and the cause of all evils in the world. They of course pick on Christians because they are cowards and Christians are easy targets. The other prominent religious believers turn their words in to action so the anti religious brigade never criticise the other religion. Its a very typical trait of the western atheist who are in fact simply haters of all human beings but in particular their hatred towards people of the Christian faith knows no bounds.

I am not a religious person, but what I do have is faith in human nature, my self, the universe, the cosmic winds or whatever else you may wish to add. I believe a world filled with humans who believe in nothing except for their own self fulfilment (Decadence in a nutshell) is a doomed world, or at least it would be an extremely miserable place to live. Life would become a thousand times more dispensable than it is now. Imagine tomorrow all humans were given indisputable proof that there was no higher being and when we die there is nothing. I don't believe humankind is ready for this knowledge, except for the haters of humankind. Millions upon millions would just think what is the point of life, and with that train of thought there would be no boundaries. They would do whatever they please and of course that would mean a lot of trouble and of course suffering. A world filled with 6 billion people who know for certain there is nothing after death is something the majority of this planets people are not ready for. Perhaps in 500-1000 years, maybe.

The anti faith brigade would have us all believe that every bad thing man has done through out history is the fault of religion. I certainly don't deny that in the name of religion millions have died over the last 2000 years. But of course history proves without any shadow of a doubt that many many more millions have died because of political ideology which is always faithless and thats only over the last 100 years. Only humans kill each other and the less faith they have in humankind the more they kill. Stalin is a perfect example.

As for the movie its self I thought it was reasonably enjoyable. Of course Denzels performance was sterling. He plays that silent hero character so well very much like he did in Man On Fire. Gary Oldman plays the bad guy equally as good. I would have liked to have seen a bit more character information. These can usually be achieved in only five or ten minutes of screen time. For example how did Washington survive, how did Oldman survive. What was the general state of the rest of the planet. Perhaps what started the war etc.

Without giving any spoilers Oldman realises that this book is power. He and Washington are living in a world where a generation have grown up without the ability to read or write. Murderous activity is a daily occurrence in peoples lives. Oldman wants that book because he knows he can use it and gain more power and control more people. He is right of course and it has been used in such a way. But he would be using it a political tool motivated by his lust for power and control over people. Of course Washington has other plans.

The point of the film was completely missed by the anti religious brigade. It isn't saying jump to the bible now and start reading, its simply saying how in certain situations one book could have the power to change the course of history and in the wrong hands not for the better. The other very important point completely missed by the anti brigade is in the very last scene of the film. Pay close attention to where the book is placed. This is a very important point and proves that this film wasn't made as a propaganda tool.

As I read the anti reviews it brings home how obvious these people are. Their extreme hatred for Christians is particularly sad because it clearly shows they will pick on the weakest, the ones that wont fight back and isn't our history full of this. They never ever mention the Muslim religion because of course some of their followers put action to words. Their selective hatred is a clear sign to me that these people are nothing but bullying cowards. Its the same on Youtube. The atheists make their videos only ever screaming at Christians. Very sad people.

In time if human beings are still around in a thousand years or so we could be ready for the knowledge. But right now we simply haven't evolved as a species to grasp the concept of nothingness. That is not a world I would like to live in right now.

But enjoy the film, its basically a decent hour and half's worth of escapism.

2012 (I) (2009)

It was the PC undertones I didn't like

[6/10 · 15 November 2009]

Great thrilling disaster film, no doubt about that.

But for me (as I expected) it was the overbearing leftists and PC undertones all the way through the film. Their not serious or even obvious but they are there. All black and Asian characters were portrayed as noble and righteous along with the women and the kids. Not so for the white male characters. An assortment of selfish no gooders, crazies, greedy Russian oligarths, and failed writers and fathers. The majority of the audience would never notice it, but those like me who see politics in almost everything (which is fact) will spot it instantly. I just wish mainstream film makers would quite the self loathing stance because its rampant in the mainstream. Just a bit of balance would have been nice.

Still, its a pretty decent couple of hours to spend watching the spectacle so I would recommend it from that perspective whole heartedly.