Reviews

9 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
Awful. Just... awful.
4 February 2016
According to Wikipedia, Brian Tallerico of RogerEbert.com wrote that "Mulder and Scully Meet the Were-Monster" is "hysterical, smart and so much fun." Darren Franich of Entertainment Weekly awarded the episode an "A". Zack Handlen of The A.V. Club gave it a perfect "A" grade and praised the writing and direction of Darin Morgan. Unbelievable. Absolute balderdash. This episode sucks to high heaven. Tallerico, Franich and Handlen are clearly imbeciles (or high, or both), and Darlin Morgan should never be allowed anywhere near a studio again. (Where do they GET these people?!) This episode is complete and utter cod's wallop from start to finish; an inane, heartless insult to all true X-Files fans. All involved should be utterly ashamed of themselves. So disappointing. No way am I going to watch a single second of any of the future episodes.
46 out of 101 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
The acting, directing and cinematography were okay, but...
23 December 2009
...this movie no doubt severely disappointed most Forsyth fans. It had very little to do with the book. It seems that (as usual) some Hollywood wonk, noting that the novel was a best-seller, gave some hack the basic premise from the back-cover blurb and got him to make something up that would appeal to Joe Sixpack and his girlfriend. The result? A cliché-ridden B-movie. Forsyth must have been livid.

It's competently handled (for such an old film it holds up amazingly well), but what presumption! The original story was just fine. What made them think that their version would be better?

Pity they didn't have the sense to hire Kenneth Ross to do the screenplay. He'd already done two of Forsyth's other books (Day of the Jackal and Odessa File), and at least made the effort to be faithful to the originals.
5 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Goal! III (2009)
3/10
Don't watch it. This isn't a sequel to Goal 2; it's a spin off (ripoff?)
26 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Goal 3 has nothing at all to do with the previous two movies. It is essentially a Hollywood version of the Tony Adams story ("Addicted"), combined with footage from England's games in the 2006 World Cup.

The first few minutes are entertaining enough (apart from the obvious bluescreen shots), but the movie then quickly goes downhill and never recovers.

Goal 3 begins in a parallel universe in which England beat Mexico in the World Cup final. It's a well edited combination of shots taken from old England and Mexico games (I don't think they've actually met since England beat Mexico 4-0 at Wembley in 2001), and was probably originally supposed to be the ending. But it's clear that the producers were unable to secure the support of FIFA and the Mexican Football Federation, and without them on board, the movie was doomed from the start. (They also seem to have lost the support of Real Madrid and Beckham.)

The acting is professional, as you'd expect from people like Leo Gregory (except for Becker, who gives the impression throughout that he didn't want to be there), but beyond that the only good thing I can say about this movie is that I didn't pay to watch it.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Grizzly Man (2005)
5/10
This documentary is more about Herzog than Treadwell
6 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Apart from the fact that Herzog should have hired a ghostwriter and voice talent (he doesn't know the difference between 'deduct' and 'deduce', and his accent is excruciating), his objective seems to be to focus on himself and his own opinions about Treadwell rather than simply letting Treadwell's footage speak for itself.

For example, at one point Treadwell is going on about how he doesn't have a girlfriend and how it would be easier if he was gay (which he probably was, judging by other footage), and much later we find him lovingly stroking a pile of fresh bear dung. Had Herzog juxtaposed those two scenes and simply kept his comments to himself, the result would have been far more eloquent.

Then there's the bit where Herzog films a glacier and compares it to Treadwell's tortured soul. But the glacier has no apparent connection with Treadwell at all. There's no evidence Treadwell went anywhere near it. So obviously it is included partly to make the documentary more cinematic (by breaking up the monotony of the Alaskan wilderness in Treadwell's footage), but mainly to give Herzog an opportunity to trot out his metaphors in a demonstration of how 'perceptive' he is about Treadwell. (A guy he never even met.) None of this gets us any closer to what made Treadwell tick.

Then there's the point where Herzog tells Treadwell's ex-girlfriend to destroy the tape recording of Treadwell's death, as if he is somehow protecting her - and our - dainty little ears from the contents. But this is after he himself has already listened to it! In other words, while it's okay for Herzog to hear it, heaven forbid anyone else should.

But the main problem is that, despite his 'insights', Herzog only skirts around the central issue, which is Treadwell's developing death wish. It's clear Treadwell committed suicide. He WANTED to be killed by a bear, and probably provoked it. It was no accident that the attack happened just before he and his girlfriend were due to be picked up. It's unlikely he wanted his girlfriend to be killed as well (he probably expected her to just run away), but like so much else in Treadwell's life, things didn't quite go according to plan. Herzog, unfortunately, seems to miss this entirely.

So all in all, while the subject matter itself is fascinating, Herzog's treatment of it leaves a great deal to be desired.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Don't Bother
3 April 2007
I can't see how anyone over the age of twelve could find anything even remotely amusing in this movie. It is totally formulaic, cliché-ridden tosh. How the producers managed to get such a high-powered cast is beyond me. What were Ben Stiller and Robin Williams thinking? Did they read the script before they signed on? The effects are okay, but there's nothing ground-breaking. (It's no improvement on that other - and far superior - Robin Williams 'animal' movie, Jumanji.) The actors do their job well enough, but this was not a good career move for anyone involved. Ricky Gervaise and Steve Coogan, particularly, are completely wasted.
3 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Not even the music...
5 December 2006
This is a terrible movie. Neil Diamond can't act... Laurence Olivier was just looking to make a quick buck... The plot is just too predictable and trite... But worst of all, the music doesn't work. How can we believe this Yussuf character has any talent at all (let alone reaches stardom) when the songs are all so... BLEAH? Don't get me wrong. I love a lot of Diamond's '70s classics. But the songs in this movie don't even come close. It would have been a far more interesting movie as a true-life biopic of Diamond's own story (with himself in the starring role if we must), and with songs such as 'I am, I Said' and 'Daydream Believer' on the soundtrack.
10 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Still Crazy (1998)
10/10
It's not 'Spinal Tap' - but it isn't supposed to be.
5 December 2006
A great movie. Well acted. Good story. And excellent music. Unlike other 'band' movies whose execrable songs let them down by removing all credibility (that old Neil Diamond vehicle 'The Jazz Singer' comes to mind), the songs are well written and believable as hits. It won't appeal to everyone, though. If you didn't grow up in Britain in the seventies you probably won't truly appreciate it. It helps if you were around when 'Strange Fruit's' supposed contemporaries, such as Status Quo, were in their heyday. In other words, it was essentially written by middle-aged Brits for middle-aged Brits. But nothing wrong with that. If you liked this, check out the movies 'That'll Be the Day' and its sequel, 'Stardust'.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Daily Show (1996– )
10/10
Quite Simply, The Best Thing on TV
5 December 2006
This is the only show that is capable of making me laugh 'til I cry. 'Friends' used to. Occasionally. But this show does it on a regular basis. Forget everything else that purports to be comedy. This is the real deal. There is, of course, the occasional unfunny segment. But that's to be expected. It's not easy coming up with burning satire four days a week. And people's tastes vary. (A weekly format would probably suit the content better.) But in general, I can't see how anyone could have a bad word to say about it. (Except, of course, O'Reilly, Hannity and all the other GOP/Murdoch stooges at Fox News. And anyone else who doesn't have an open mind and the ability to laugh at themselves.)
6 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Forget the Director's Comments
5 December 2006
This is one of those boring 'let me tell you what's happening' commentaries. When will these people realise (sp is British, by the way) that we can see perfectly well for ourselves what's happening? A complete waste of time. What people who listen to these commentaries want is information about how the movie was made. (Preferably with jokes and salacious gossip.) Also, I don't think the following qualifies as a SPOILER, but... Would anyone put together such an elaborate scam that entirely depends on the mark not calling his ex-wife? (With one phone call, the entire scam would have fallen apart.)
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed