Reviews

Comment not a review...

I laughed a lot. I have a sick sense of humour perhaps but that was what this film was intending to do.

It has such a great premise - I ain't giving it away - but the disclosure of what was happening was hysterical. I can almost hear the nations of the world say "about time" {insert language translation here]}

I am getting to see a lot more Canadian stuff - real Canadian- not Americans popping over to use locations to make out it's still USA. No, movies from Canada and I am looking a lot of them. They have a similar tone to USA ones but they have the two languages that mark a difference. This is definitely one of them.

Didn't give any spoilers ... but came close ...

Comment not review-

More than anything, Phase IV is a masterpiece in cinematography. The small scaled shots of ants is amazing. The colours and and surroundings with different types of filming - from time lapse to micro - is fascinating. It is carefully manufactured to showcase the talents of the technical aspects of film making - and the characters are secondary but fun.

Fun because they just do what they are just plonked in the picture to do. No fuss. Someone gets bitten and goes crazy. The formulae is familiar but the photography wins the day.

Just watch the positioning of the camera from the car pulling up, the desert landscapes, the isolation, the horror of carcasses being destroyed by ants. ...

Hooray for the ants. Hooray for this film. Hooray it ain't on anyone's top ten but mine...

And so do some fans of the genre. But what about just people enjoying a film? I did. This was good. It had so much to go for it. Pinhead was charismatically underused, sure, but Bradley said so as much before: less is more.

Scott Derrickson has said that this is. It the franchise as such: the hellraiser franchise is dead. It had a new approach and if you've not seen the others before then this was a good start. It delivers a between quality of filming despite the budget - and so what about the budget? Let it be known more expensive budgets are far worse. Less is more.

Derrickson made a good film. A 7/10 for me because it's a horror with a detective story done in a Lynch-esque way. It could've been better (still would've been a 7/10 for me) but the intentions are solid and the story has legs ... apart from "chatterer".

Like with Jordan Peele, the attempts of good new directors with great debuts seem to drift off into a field of farts - and I am so disappointed. My good money spent on this terrible bloat of nothing - pretentious without a path. I am so upset with you doing this! I was so looking g forward to it. How dare you, Ari, waste your talent on this. It's amazing how little you respect the audience. No matter how you film it (and you film it well) it is wasted on such boredom. Such no-thing. It will be forgotten. How can you do this to yourself? How can you be so arrogant with such genius gifts? Don't do this again.

Be better like you promised us you would. Go up now. Don't go down. You'll have to fight your way back, and I hope you do. I hope you do.

And I like slow films, but this was a very long drawn out over hyped movie. Nothing much showed and nothing much happened. You see how the lose of direction the director starts to take with his subsequent films. This was an unbelievably dull film with a wasted Mel Gibson in the lead role. He does his usual worried look - I like his worried look - but not much else is worrying me. It is fraught with a slim picking of a story and crop circles have been a non episode since it was discovered that shopping trolleys made them. Well, not alone - now that's a movie. Mel is still one of my favourite actors but obviously he wanted to have the same success with this one as Bruce Willis did with The Sixth Sense - but that was ultimately a hard movie to beat. You cannot keep that level of suspense and surprise up. You need to shift gears. Alas, perhaps studios won't allow that...

This was a favourite children's show on its release in the late 70s and it was aimed right at my age. As a child the adventures were wild. Children read the books and this show excited many more to do so. Such a treat on a weekday night to have an episode. One a week mind. Somehow George was the standout character. She was for all a good rough and readily abled that both boys and girls liked. But that never detracted from all of the other character's input and quality.

I would still rate it highly (and I am). People snigger at the age of the show and its obvious plot holes, but a kid is a kid and any kid whatever era it is in will enjoy this as much as us Gen X.

This was something I knew all my life. Australians like "special" people in gentle and innocent ways. No matter that people are violent or aggressive no matter what, but Tim is "special" in the optics of 70s ideals.

Mel puts in an admirable and good performance with a slew of Aussie actors who are famous and try the dialogue out as next they can.

It's got charm and obstacles but sometimes it's strained and forced. Scenery is as what I remember but the Colleen McCullough's screen play is slack and docile. No substance nor interest in people of learning difficulties. It's no "Harold and Maude" and it's typically an Aussie TV flick.

We were simple then. Anything different was made to be sympathetic rather than shock treatment. It tries - tediously tries.

I have good faith with this movie. It's fine. It's ok. It's Mel Gibson straight outta NIDA trying out his best endeavours. He must thank Mad Max for his success as this was the only thing going for him at the time.

And I like Mel - Yank made good in Oz before being Yank again - but I like his Aussie movies. He is charming and the best.

I felt the idea of it being in one afternoon was a good idea. Acting started a little rusty for me. Lovely location. The locations made more sense as it went along (out of the way house etc).

What I did struggle with was the stifled dialogue. When the story moved up some notches it got more fluid but at the start a bit rigid and not natural flow. Sentences felt really poorly executed with a real strict script. But this I suspect is the lack of time to rehearse.

The stand out acting was Olivia Luccardi - excellent reactions and natural delivery.

Overall I felt it was a very good idea. Nicely directed but NOT in one shot as others assumed it was. And so what?

I am going to interested where Beth De Aroujo will go next because maybe she's gonna be one to watch.

Hope so.

Then I watched it. It is exactly what I didn't like the look of it initially. And it was huge at the time. In my 50's now and I think it is as dated as it looked new. Not a fan of this and I wondered if Dick Tracey was an influence on Tim Burton.

And it's because it's as corny as the tv show. But the comics were never like this. So why the ham acting and studio settings? Missing out on the Bam and Wallop and the Smasharoo signage.

It's Tim Burton I suppose. And that's the thrill for many and the not so engaging for me.

So for the people who appreciated grittier Batman's, this defiantly will disappoint. And boy how slow did Michael Keaton move around as Batman??

The only thing I liked at the time was Prince's song. That's it.

Bored.

Despite good casting it failed to appeal with a tired drama trying to capture the general interest the original Belgian film had.

It lacks tense and dread.

Not that Americans shouldn't have their cultural take on it. But I hope some would appreciate the fact that endings aren't always happy.

Never mind. Just wasn't for me.

There is nothing in this film that I felt disappointed in. I have seen the original and I do like them both equally. This wasn't a disappointment. It had fine acting great scenes and good direction.

I understand some reactions to this being unsatisfactory to expectations but really...what could you possibly expect? You got it all. And it worked on that level.

Pity others didn't see that. But it really was a worthwhile rendition.

This is MY show - not that I had anything to do with it except for the reason that I watched it religiously, followed it and adored it. I was a huge MJF fan ever since I saw this show for the first time.

It ain't particularly clever, or comedic in a classic way-but it is definitely nostalgic for me. Not that MJF was anywhere near my age at the time (either as the character Alex or MJF's actual age) as being a thirteen year old when this came out was just a big transitional moment for me in my development. I started to dress like him: yes, even wearing ties and a sweater vest.

This show was pure joy, embellished with antidotes of a dying breed of family life (divorce rates were high and just going upwards), so it was a little stale in its topic but delightfully homely and beautifully loved.

What was supplied was good humour, good storytelling in 30 minute chunks, and a great, altogether loving cast.

The end was nigh though when they added a fourth child. No one wanted that. I don't know why they did. But I was still there til the end.

Fox and family were my family. I would record the show on cassette tape (we had no vhs machines in our family) and listened to the tapes endlessly. Watching them again in recent years, some of those shows are really vivid because of that.

And of course it goes without saying being a fan of the show you got to see more of MJF growing up in the movies.

It isn't for anyone really now trying to get into. It's for those wanting to see MJF before and during his most famous time.

It was also the time of crushes and Justine Bateman of course shined.

She was adorable, likeable, charming and despite the purposes of of her character, highly intelligent - even making sure Mallory was not typecast and applied more sensibilities and development throughout the years ensuring she was growing too.

It's old. Old as me and just for me.

...and no wonder it flopped at the time it was released. And of course it was homosexual centricity, the way words and actions were portrayed in '77 (gee, people were still unsure if Freddy Mercury was gay or not - or who cared?). But plays and films portraying sexuality this way is DUMB! Dumb, because it tries to be smart about it. And honestly, it might as well be about beastiality since this was at first looking that way. Naked man stroking a horse...

If Equus was done for stage again, I hope no one shows up telling producers we are over being coy about such subjects and those attitudes remain in the dark ages. Grrrr... I am angry about how that film asked me to be in a subliminal frame of mind about it...

It all had potential to be better... boring, dumb and arrogant!

'Prince of the City' quality of film it AIN'T! Director's are so fickle...

How well it still is. A film 100 years this year and it still shines.

It had a good feel starting off, and for most of it I really liked the flow of this film. The way it was directed - going in and out of those areas in a hotel you as a guest don't see - was actually well choreographed. I think the attention to detail and work life was well executed and Fox was a brilliant lead.

But the ending was a rushed affair. Formulaic because it was a RomCom, but it needed an extra intelligence that I believe the film was delivering for the most part. Fox actually looked mature and not so funny and cute, which is what I liked to see in my favourite actors - I encourage their stretch. I liked his approach in the character in this. "Keatonesque" but not overtly funny.

I missed this when it came out (bad reviews at the time) even though I was an MJF fan from Family Ties days.

Glad to have finally caught up with these lesser known film cannon of Fox which to me this is one of them. I knew Bright Lights and Light of Day, but this was a bit later for me to take an interest.

Fox still doesn't disappoint in my view. I would've given this 7/10, if it wasn't for the stilted last 15 minutes of the film.

Not my cup of tea. Not "Gallipoli" or "Apocalypse Now" experience (since they are also war films). It lacked something in emotion I felt. Felt more interested in the technical aspect to make the viewer think it was done in one shot. Of course not and you can see it. Having focused on that, it wasn't "Birdman" quality.

All in all, been done before. So nothing new here.

It is good but flawed in a simple premise. As a child when this book came out it had everything: the imagination being the crucial point. It was another world but only via the child's imagination. The bedroom turns into a forest then a sea then the place where the wild things are. That was the beauty of the story.

Came back to this film on Netflix. Saw it on release in the cinema and did have a tear from my childhood memories about the story which was so impactful.

This however has the best bits in the middle. It had the flaws around it.

I miss simplicity....

"They" being critics, wrote about this being a good film. It was anything but. I was particularly unimpressed with the premise. I was annoyed at not being shocked, which I was promised I would by the favourable reviews.

I expected some sort of twist and turns but instead I got a flat emotive and straightforward story that gave nothing to the audience in the way of empathy, sympathy or even scare. It was dull. And the acting was HAM! Terrible use of arms (seeing someone drag themselves by their arms wouldn't take that long of a struggle). The weird income that must've taken to have all of that property and "stuff", never mind the medication. How the hell did the mother supply income when she was supposedly home all the time? Because that girl surely should've done some snooping early on in the day if her mother was out supply teaching (which was briefly mentioned at a passing one time only as if to explain the lifestyle they had)!

Stupid stupid stupid.

I'm not.

It is.

My son told me it was ok. That's the opinion of a fourteen year old. It wasn't even that ok for me but I'm not the targeted market. If I was, I'd still not be impressed by the over use of slo-mo action, terrible scripted lines and Ben Affleck still as Batman. He doesn't cut the mustard. Never will.

It's a Marvel makeover, but they are certainly more enjoyable (again those films were not for me, but I was still impressed with some of those films).

"300" was a good use of these effects. Snyder is a one trick pony though.

I turned 18 and wanted to see this for my birthday as I was intrigued by the newspaper advert of the movie. I also knew the critics raved about it and the run at the independent theatre was still going strong. It being 1988 you didn't have IMDb or other internet outlets so when my mother and sister came with me to have a night out to watch this, it creeped us all out. I was more than pleased with the movie. Upon exiting I cannot forget the faces of the audience ready to go in. They saw all of our expressions going out and they had then felt I am sure something very special was just seen by this nerved audience leaving. None of us spoke about it until way out of the theatre. It's was so striking.

It's a brilliant (see what I did there?) story by one of our best stage play writers David Williamson, but I think the others got hold of his story and stirred it a bit too much. The acting of Michael Vietch can't escape his comedic presence (as he is more known by), but the others are good at their stick. However the strange ending leaves you uneasy and I do think this was down to the production of the film. Knowing it was shot quickly and on a low budget - all of which should be commendable - this final episode of the film has a sudden terse without tense. It needed something else to end the film - a definite Brilliant Lie the whole family endured which should leave you unsettled in the "correct" way. But as said with said Veitch and the low budget which presumably lead to some bad editing here, it has a bewilderment to it that even in our Aussie senses of these days of "alternative" drama, this still had a bad taste that the writers, director and editor failed to grab you for a final gasp of WTF? moment.

Dear me, what a waste. Not for the acting which was ok, but the film runs its course about 10 minutes in. That's the problem with these premises: the idea is good, but not for this long. Reminded me of "Man Bites Dog" and "Series 7" which also ran it's course quickly. The way everything is documented live on camera. "Blair Witch Project" has something else of course - a bit of suspense. This needed more than slash and torment.

It's like selling a retread of a worn out tire..

It ain't no "We Need To Talk About Kevin"

Old rope...

It's what Ritchie most probably had created whilst being in the countryside with Madonna. Right down to the terrible dress sense. Ramblers and weed must've been his first initial idea when he wanted the ramblers out of his property.

It's another example of a bloated ego with very little to go on.

STOP the stupid macho "cool" stylised crap stereo types of geezas, goons and gangsters. Have some gravitas.

It dulled the hell outa me. BORING.