Reviews

Forget Psycho, Jaws or Texas Chainsaw Massacre - this film is the epitome of the scariest genre of all ....... the Feel Good movie! If you think the only thing wrong with a Viennese coffee topped by a mountain of whipped cream is - there should be more cream, then this is the movie for you! The plot explores new meanings of the word 'unbelievable', the script is hackneyed schmaltz and the acting is formula. If you think 'Bambi meets Lassie' is the best movie ever made, this film is a must see (Okay, that's not a real film but you get the idea). In all seriousness, if you like a good cry I think a Lassie movie is a better option - and much more believable.

Okay, I give in. What was Ryan Reynolds thinking when he signed up for this lemon? This film is absolute garbage. A guy talks to his cat and dog, who talk back, dismembers women for no clearly discernible reason and puts their heads in his refrigerator. That makes sense .... actually, no it doesn't! Is this a horror film? Well, it makes no attempt to shock or terrify, so that's a no. Is it a comedy? It that was the intention, it didn't just miss the bulls-eye, it missed the entire dart board! At the risk of repeating myself, this film is drivel - avoid it, your time would be better spent watching paint dry!

This film is abysmal. If it were not for passable performances by Woody Harrelson and Richard Jenkins, it would have joined my list of the Worst 20 Films of all Time. Justin Timberlake should go back to whatever he was doing when he had a real job, something more appropriate to his talents, like flipping burgers!

Have you ever found yourself watching another absolute lemon and wondering how bad a film can be? Well, this offering answers the question. I would like to be able to critically evaluate its plot but I don't have the stomach for it. To describe it as infantile would be unmerited flattery. The dialogue? I can only assume it was written by a six year old afflicted with severe learning difficulties. The acting? I haven't seen anything as bad as this since .... actually I don't think I've ever seen anything as consistently and uniformly dreadful! Seeking desperately for something positive to say, I would accept that the martial arts sequences are reasonably well choreographed - but really, your time would be far better spent hiring an old Jackie Chan or Jean-Claude Van Damme movie. I've seen some real howlers in my time but this is without doubt a contender for the title of "Worst Film of All Time". Avoid it at any cost.

So, Woody Allen has written a film about sex, jealousy, volatile emotions, etc, etc - what a surprise! Okay, the performances in this film are creditable or better, particularly Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz who make it passably watchable. But when it's all said and done, this film is a bore. Basically, who cares? The sad thing is that I remember when Woody Allen could actually write. His was one of the most original and clever comedic minds in the second half of the twentieth century on either side of the Atlantic. Now he produces slightly left of centre versions of plots that would be at home on the Hallmark channel. May his genius rest in peace.

This is another embarrassingly bad attempt by the Italians to produce a WWII movie - this time inspired (if that's the right word) by 'The Dirty Dozen'. The action - and I use the word in its loosest possible sense - is reminiscent of the Keystone Cops. Hand grenades are thrown and bodies pop up into the air like champagne corks in the most absurdly comic fashion. The most - make that the only - interesting thing about this film is the appearance of Ian Bannen. I imagine he is still trying to live down his part in this absolute dog. I can only assume he needed the money. If you insist upon watching this appalling piece of drivel, I would strongly recommend a full lobotomy beforehand - it may make the experience less painful.

When this film came up on the TV guide, I checked IMDb to see if it might be worth watching. It had a score of 7.1, which sounded promising. I feel compelled to write a review of this film to help others avoid making the same mistake. This film is abysmal! Does it reflect genuine life experiences? Well, my cv doesn't include being handyman at a holiday lodge but perhaps it should. Apparently I could expect to be pursued by an attractive woman in her early forties ... and her daughter! I don't remember that being explained in the careers brochure. Apart from that, the storyline is a collection of hideously predictable clichés. So, the 'plot' is drivel, is the acting any better? Is the Pope a Catholic? The performances are stilted and stereotyped, of the standard one might reasonably expect from a local dramatic production. If you have the choice of watching this film or having your spleen removed without an anaesthetic, take option B.

Few recent films have been accompanied by the hype that surrounded Avatar. Is it justified? Well, the visual effects are undeniably striking, thanks to the latest incarnation of 3D. What about the substance of the film? The plot is as trite as the visual impact is impressive. If you have seen any of the moral tales lamenting the demise of the Noble Savage in harmony with nature, you have already heard the tale. Now let me see, what other oppressed native population rode horses, used bows and arrows, and gave 'war whoops' when riding into battle - no, don't tell me, I'm sure I'll get it. This story was told - and better told - by the 'new age' westerns of the 1950s starring the likes of Randolph Scott. The characters in Avatar don't fare well in a comparison with those earlier examples of the genre either. They are comic book figures - stereotyped, two dimensional and bordering on the infantile. This is the sort of film in which the heroes are so sickeningly sweet you find yourself rooting for the villains - at least they are more interesting! Does this film have any merit? Is it worth watching? If you are under the age of 16, the answer might be yes - otherwise, it will be an insult to your intelligence.

Like many others, I became a fan of Quentin Tarantino when I saw the iconic Pulp Fiction. Sadly, it has all been downhill since then and with Inglourious Basterds he really trawls the depths. I have no objection to Tarantino's penchant for gratuitous violence, it has served a purpose in cinema from the time Moe first poked Larry in the eye in the Three Stooges (and probably before). However in this film Tarantino seems intent upon presenting sickening violence that is not so much gratuitous as irrelevant. In Pulp Fiction the violence was cleverly and eccentrically presented - in this film it is neither. The story is not even loosely based on fact - which is just as well because if it were, the number of Americans in the dock at Nuremberg would have exceeded the number of Nazis. The characters are boorishly stereotypical and - even in a film deliberately seeking unbelievability - lack any trace of credibility. The most notable example is the portrayal of the Nazi colonel by Christoph Waltz (presumably a nom-de-plume to protect his true identity - and his career?). The character emerges as a sort of Hogan's Heroes meets La Cage aux Folles, with the colonel camping it up and smoking a ludicrously huge pipe. Sadly, this film is further evidence - if any was needed - of the demise of a once creative genius. If I ever have any grandchildren, I will be able to tell them that I remember when Steve Martin was funny and when Quentin Tarantino was talented - but will they believe me?

I have long considered Meryl Streep to be very limited as a dramatic actress, every character was portrayed in the same way - dark and tortured. Then came Mama Mia - and lo and behold, she couldn't do comedy either! So I watched The Iron Lady with some misgivings. I thought Streep might carry off the 'hard case' side of Margaret Thatcher reasonably well - but had grave doubts about her delivering a sensitive portrayal of the ageing baroness. Well, I was wrong. She gives an inspired performance, giving an all-too-real portrayal of a once powerful woman coping with the effects of growing old - personal loss, diminished independence, a weakening grasp of reality. In fact her representation of Thatcher, the dominant political figure, is a less compelling and more stereotypical effort. She is very ably supported by Jim Broadbent as her husband, giving the character humour, reality and a little eccentricity. As is usual with serious productions heavily staffed with British actors in the lesser roles, the quality of the rest of the cast is excellent. As a story of Thatcher's career, this film is deficient - but it would be impossible to cram a more complete record into 105 minutes. And that is not the real objective anyway - the intent is to portray the woman and that it does very well indeed.

Can someone please explain to me why Tori Spelling keeps on getting roles? Actors - and actresses - get work for one of two reasons (a) they have talent, or (b) they are beautiful/handsome/cute/etc. Tori Spelling doesn't even come close to qualifying on either criterion - she has all the talent of Hulk Hogan and the looks of, well, Hulk Hogan. So what is going on here? However, imagine my surprise when I watched this film - it is actually not too bad. My assessment has nothing to do with Tori Spelling - she is just as dreadful in this as she has been in everything else I've seen featuring her. The upside of this effort is a surprisingly good performance by another perennial disappointment - William Shatner. He may be an icon due to his role in the Star Trek series but William has, in my view, always been a terrible ham - overacting painfully whenever the opportunity has presented itself. But in this film his performance is clever and sharp. In fact, it is watchable almost solely due to his surprisingly witty contribution. Even Gary Coleman, definitely a contender for the worst actor of all time, manages to outshine Spelling with some reasonable delivery. So, if you are looking for a way to kill 90 minutes or so - and can turn a blind eye to Tori Spelling's trade mark incompetence - this movie is probably an option.

Just when you think the horror genre can't rise above it's preoccupation with mindless gore - it does! The Wolfman features excellent locations, impressive period sets, intelligent dialogue and a hard-to-beat cast. Anthony Hopkins gives a wonderfully subtle and ironic performance, Hugo Weaving is ideally cast as the Victorian era Scotland Yard Inspector, Benicio Del Toro is solidly believable and there's a nice little cameo piece by Geraldine Chaplin. The plot is not exactly riddled with unexpected twists - the core story line is, after all, rather well known - but it is well managed and maintains pace and interest. Blood-soaked directors please take note - this is a thinking person's horror film.

The horror genre seems to generate far more than its fair share of absolute duds - and this is definitely one of them. The opening scenes, which would do a 1970's soft core porn flick proud, set the (very low) tone for this film. The filming also put me in a nostalgic frame of mind - it is reminiscent of a 1960's home movie. The plot is wafer thin and not worth wasting either my time writing about it, or your time reading same. The cast? Noah Taylor is suitably psychopathic, although he seems a little weedy for an Iraq war vet - perhaps he was a computer geek in intelligence. And what luck, he works in a DIY store - that would explain the seemingly inexhaustible supply of duct tape! The balance of the cast would appear to have very promising careers - flipping burgers in some fly-blown truck stop on route whatever just outside Nowhereville, USA. This little disaster was written, produced and directed by Simon Rumley - a combination of roles that challenges even the genuinely talented. Filled with dread, I checked the list of credits for Mr Rumley - I am very pleased to say it is mercifully short. Long may it remain so.

I've always considered films to be a form of escapism, not necessarily all Doris Day and happy endings but at least a positive experience. Silly me. Apparently it is the film maker's duty to drag us through the mire of the most repugnant examples of human behaviour. The main character in this film, Joseph, is a violent and thoroughly unlikeable piece of work, especially if you're a dog lover. His 'saviour', Hannah, is an appealing but tragically depressing figure and her husband nothing short of bestial. I don't know about you but I don't need to have my nose rubbed in the misery of the human condition. In short, this film should come with a health warning - watching it may have you reaching for the nearest sharp instrument. And I thought Oliver Stone was depressing .......

Funding for this film was provided by the UK Film Council, which was abolished by the government in 2010. I can't help but wonder if that decision was taken after members of the government saw Submarine and concluded the money could be put to better use. It just goes to show that even governments can get it right occasionally. Submarine is billed as a comedy/drama/romance. If there is an amusing line in this film, I must have missed it. A drama? I don't think so! The characters are far too ludicrous to be taken seriously. A romance? The relationship between 15 year old Oliver Tate and the raven haired Jordana does hold some interest but in the end, the rest of the film defeats it. Ultimately, Submarine appears to have been framed with cult status in mind but its attempts to be clever and eccentric are far too obvious and heavy handed. It should be allowed to sink without a trace.

At last, a fresh and imaginative comedy. An ambitious, hard nosed, big city mover and shaker (Zellweger) goes to small town USA to shake up a local company that's behind the times. She falls for the local hunk (Connick Jr) who is the union rep, which of course complicates the situation. Throw in a few 'mom and apple pie' characters plus dollops of homespun philosophy ...... what, you've seen it all before? No kidding! Yep, this effort is as stale as last week's buckwheat pancakes. The cast does its best but the story line and characters are so hackneyed that nothing could save this film from mediocrity. Utterly predictable and cloyingly sweet, you should watch it only if you've finished reading all of your junk mail catalogues.

Trying to overcome insomnia? Then this is the film for you! I thought 'Dances with Wolves' was boring (and it was) but this film re-sets the scale. You've heard the line, "The best thing about this film was the credits at the end"? Well, this time it's true! If I was Will Patton or Bruce Greenwood, I'd be suing my agent for convincing me to appear in this yawn. The characters are uninteresting and the dialogue predictable. The only character holding even a modicum of interest is the Indian, who has the advantage of delivering his lines in a Native American language, mercifully sparing us further banality. Given that the director didn't have much to occupy her time, you'd think she'd at least get the detail right. Nope! At one point the group calls a temporary halt to their trek and the 'womenfolk' seek shelter under a canvas canopy presumably erected to give relief from the relentless heat - except that during yet another piece of excruciatingly tedious dialogue, at least two of the party are clearly completely unshaded due to the angle of the sun. Lord save us! In an obvious attempt to be meaningful, this film has managed to achieve its antithesis.