Reviews

4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
3/10
What a disappointment
28 April 2024
I'm a huge fan of the Indiana Jones series. I even liked Crystal Skull!

I rarely write reviews but I had to rate this film as I didn't want people to go into it expecting the best, as I did!

We were on holiday in Bamburgh, Northumberland, UK. At that time the castle was closed because the film was being shot there. So I did feel invested in the film and had high hopes.

But this film is such a disappointment. The characters are introduced quickly and without much of a back story. I didn't feel I was asked to care about Bas or even Teddy. The pace is manic and I might almost think the director was firing everything at us so we didn't have time to think about just how bad the film is. For example, that car chase in Tangiers. Just how big is that city? At the speed they were going, it must be HUGE!

The baddies are bad. Oh look, there they are shooting dead yet another random background character. Just in case we thought the baddies had suddenly turned good.

The plot is thin and includes cut and pasted scenes from other Indiana Jones films and a whole section from For Your Eyes Only!

I felt so sad that the series finishes here. I'll probably watch it again in the future, just for the 10 minutes in Bamburgh!
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear
28 April 2023
I rarely write reviews on here. So for me to commit to print, it must be either very good or very bad, right?

Well, in this case it's just very MEH.

The actors (considering the names here) are sleepwalking through the script. The direction is pedestrian. The drama is... non existent. There's no real engagement. We are shown things and told things but not really invited "in" to join the characters. I've seen worse films than this and watched through to the end. But this time I bailed out just over halfway through.

To sum it up... the film is slow. It's a war film with not much war. It's an art film without much art. It's dull and that's about all I have to say.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Titanic II (2010 Video)
1/10
This is an awful film
13 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The plot (such as it is) of this film has nothing whatsoever to do with James Cameron's Titanic. The title relates to a cruise ship called Titanic II. So having cleared that up, what is this film about? Rich kid, Hayden Walsh (Shane Van Dyke, who also wrote and directed) with more money than sense, builds a ship that looks exactly like the 1912 version. But inside, it is completely different, including turbo powered engines that can run at speeds up to 50 knots. Meanwhile, scientist Dr Kim Patterson (Brooke Burns) studying the effects of global warming on the Greenland ice sheet discovers a crack in the ice. Just as she is explaining this to top scientist James Maine (a sleepwalking Bruce Davison), the ice breaks. The tidal wave is enormous and moving at 850 miles per hour. It sweeps icebergs in its path. A Navy submarine is destroyed. The Titanic II tries to outrun it, but the engines overheat and it is stranded. An iceberg smashes into the side and it starts to sink. Half of the lifeboats are unusable so it's women and children only.

There are so many things that are wrong with this film, that it would be impossible to name them without sounding pedantic. One example: This ship is said to be following the same path as the original. Titanic left Europe in 1912, travelling West. Titanic II leaves New York, travelling East. The cast are uniformly bad. They act as if they are really not trying. Many of them would look bad in a daytime soap. The direction is very poor, many shots of people talking on deck were filmed on an actual ship, but shot from a very low angle with no camera movement so you don't see the background. The effects are the worst I have ever seen, the CGI ship is so bad they'd have been better with an actual model in a water tank.

As someone who has an interest in the Titanic story, this film was a monumental disappointment. As a piece of harmless entertainment, it failed miserably because it was simply terrible. It's worth saying that some films are so bad they are funny, this is not one of those, this is simply a really bad film that has nothing to merit it at all. Do not watch. I only wish I could have given it zero stars.
12 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Thomas and the Coma
9 February 2007
We bought this disaster movie on video for our daughter when she was only two and "into" Thomas and Co. She loved it. It was frequently the only thing that would send her to sleep. After watching it about ten times, or more, it began to become something you could not tear yourself away from. It's hypnotic. It got to the point where we could recite the script to each other to relieve the monotony of long car journeys. It's almost like watching a car crash. You know you shouldn't watch, but you can't help it. One time we had a family party, had too much to drink and put the video on again. It was hilarious! My daughter is now eight, and thankfully hasn't seen it for a while. By the way, our son (who is a BIG fan of Thomas) hates it. Go figure!
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed