Reviews

I rented this by accident, instead of the film of the same name with Mads Mikkelsen. I didn't realise this until after watching it though so took it at face value. I do enjoy this genre so I just thought I'd ordered it on purpose.

It's not great. It has elements of Hostel, Running Man, Hunger Games, amongst others and an odd back story around a porn writer. The latter was hard to follow and I never fully figured out what he did or was trying to do. This didn't seem to matter though as once the main plot kicked in it became irrelevant. It was visually pretty good, surprisingly so for an obviously low budget film. The action was pretty good too and there was a sense of drama and tension. However the grizzly graphic violence went wildly beyond anything required for the plot or artistic value. I'm not averse to violent films and it can give a sense of the true horror of a situation, however in The Hunt all we got was more and more hideous body parts and blood.

It was hard to sympathise with the only proper character and the others were pretty empty. By the end - I won't give it away in case you still want to watch it - I had little interest left. It was only on trying to figure out why I had rented this film that I discovered its poor reviews. Not really worth watching, to be honest. At least it's short.

There are a large number of gushing reviews on here and it was enough to fool me into watching this film. I think they're written largely by Eastwood's many fans, in honour of his remarkable career, and not really for this film. This review is to plead with you not to watch it.

The plot is implausible. The characters are one dimensional, silly stereotypes. The dialogue is lame - no-one talks like that! - some hilarious one-liners but this was because the language was so poorly researched and unlikely. Oh, here's satirical character Ali G - oh no I'm sorry, that's supposed to be a serious character. The racial stereotyping is so superficial I felt like I was watching a script written by a nine-year-old. The continuity gaffs are relentless, blatant, almost wilful. The whole thing looked like a children's made-for-TV adventure, of the sort they show around 4pm on a weekday, but pepped-up with graphic violence and lots of blood.

Then there's the actors. We all love Eastwood and you have hundreds of reviews of just him, he's OK in this. But the rest - I think they happened to be hanging around in Burger King one day and got swept up in a big Eastwood fun bus to go in his movie. That priest - no Catholic or any other priest can be as dumb as that. He's a lost character from Father Ted, and I felt an overwhelming urge to punch him every time he came on screen. Everyone else mumbles through their lines as if in a school play, particularly Thao. Sue is the exception, a giddy fairy-girl fresh from Disneyland, gabbling over her long words, as if reading a card in a call-centre, attempting to sound sophisticated.

But by far the most painful was the indulgence in Themes. Like a particularly dire concept album, Gran Torino takes on every big theme going and blunders around loudly in it. Catholicism, forgiveness, sacrifice, confession? Yeah we can take that, simples! Racism, social division, cultural alienation, yeah we can handle that. Coming of age? No-one's ever made a film about that, let's do it! Isolation of the elderly and infirm, terminal illness? Overseas wars and the burden felt by veterans? Revenge? Death? None of these profound facets of life are too tough, or warrant more than the most superficial thought before Eastwood wades in and sorts it with some guns.

Oddly, the one topic the makers may have been able to handle, and which I was naively quite looking forward to - classic American cars - was left untouched. I learnt nothing about the GT, what it stands for, its cultural significance or even why they bothered to include it. The Fast and The Furious, for example, is intellectual by comparison. And 8 Mile taught me more about Detroit.

Also, not that this matters, but the DVD extras were really dumb. Some flimsy interviews with the cast and crew on the topic "aren't cars great?". *Two separate films* with the same people saying the same stuff. No thought whatsoever went into this. And the closing credits - Jamie Cullum co-writing with Eastwood - caps it all. Just don't do it. Go watch "Unforgiven" again, really, you should do that instead.

Maybe this film works if you're American - all I can tell is that I'm British, and it didn't work for me. I think you'd have to be a real die-hard Eastwood fan to enjoy it.

First to the good points of this film. I will never really understand why Robin Williams continues to make films like this because he's superb. Particularly as a troubled villain, which I guess is what he's supposed to be here. Williams was the only high point for me and he earns my two stars on his own.

The bad points however go on and on. Where can I start? Characters. None of the characters are convincing, or have a plausible background to make them what they are. None of them develop in any credible way. Most if not all are clichés, parodies of something better. None has any depth or subtlety.

Premise. The premise is just too silly. I understand that we need to suspend disbelief to get the most out of fiction. This is too contrived, though. No serious effort is made to win us over to believe even enough to engage with the film.

Plot. The plot is irritatingly predictable and has more holes than anything I've seen or read in years. It's feels gratuitous, too - why make us wonder about these petty things when we already have to swallow the implausible premise?

Visuals. Nothing of note, nothing to see here. As dull as ditch water. Perhaps more importantly, the soundtrack is terrible. To engage with the premise I think the viewer needs to be inspired by the music, but we were all cringing. It was so very cheesy, and had no edge or charisma. The painful attack on Van Morrison - why was this necessary? So many have succeeded here but for some reason the studio indulged Rhys Meyers' own hash at it. Worst of all though is what I can only describe as a naff fusion of orchestra and American-Irish rock. Surely this silly notion has been done to death, but we are asked to buy it as an expression of how together and how brilliant the characters are.

But it goes on. Hollywood often relishes Irish stereotypes but we all but see Rhys Meyers in a Leprechaun outfit Riverdancing around an enormous pint of Guinness chirping "to be sure to be sure". If any other aspect of the film had worked this kind of stuff would have broken the spell. The nonsense of slapping the guitar, always conveniently in open tuning. Why? That cheesy "pick of destiny" moment. The saccharine rainbow of musical urchins. And tarnishing the glorious memory of Don't Look Now. Like most films this was too long, but the last 40 minutes felt literally like hours.

Under the skin of all of this seem to be frothing hormones boiling over, a coo-cooing around a romantic notion of the child and above all a total absence of editorial control over whoever's idea this was.

Film fans will find nothing to see here. Don't waste your time, there's paint drying somewhere which you could be watching instead,

There's little I can add to the other comments on the film. Like others, I saw it as a child and never got over it. I spent countless hours fruitlessly trawling google for a film called "man in a glass booth". Finally after a tip-off from the only other person I know who'd seen it, I found it on YouTube. It brought it all back in the short 30-odd wobbly minutes it lasts, and reminded me that this bizarre childhood experience is central to my love of film now.

I am convinced this was shown on more than one occasion by the BBC. The range of dates and ages given by other reviewers is too broad to be down to error (you *know* how old you were when you saw La Cabina). I saw it in the early 80s, but definitely later than 1980. Maybe it was a stock film the Beeb held in case they needed to fill in late night when the schedules ran awry.

OK it's dated a little, but not enough to detract from the effect. Which is profound.

But if you've read this far you've probably already seen it. If so *please log in and vote on this title*. The reviews have made me realise how valuable IMDb is. If you've any new views on interpretation, I think we'd all like to hear them. The mean score for La Cabina is so high it would rank in the top 100 on here if only it had enough votes. So give something back, create an account and vote on La Cabina and be part of the IMDb process. We might even finally get this "little dirty gem" the attention it deserves!

This is a film with nothing going for it.

I picked this up on DVD without knowing anything about it - only that I'd seen Carell in The 40yr Old Virgin (which I'd expected to be really dumb, but was pleasantly surprised) and Little Miss Sunshine (which I thought was excellent). Somewhat perturbed that the only review quoted on the packaging was from Heat magazine, but willing to give it a go.

From the word go, all I got was cliché. Tired old stereotypes, predictable plot devices - if you can call them that - a sickly pastiche of the blandest of Hollywood's mediocrity strung together for no apparent reason or gain. Romcom's don't *have* to be bad - they can be great - but this film plumbs the depths of the genre, exploring thoroughly all the reasons why the genre has a bad name. Full of syrupy happy family scenes with no tension or edge, from a world which someone with no creativity wants us all to believe in. I felt like I was being lectured about the wonder of American family life - while in fact the film cast that life as a bland, fake world that filled me with dread (and I don't believe that families anywhere - US or otherwise - live like this).

Oddly, the redeeming feature was some of the deleted scenes. The moments spent on building character depth seem all to have been cut - the fundamental flaw here is the silly, shallow characters, and giving them some (any) depth would have helped considerably. No points for cut scenes, though - not from me anyway - so this is firmly a 1-star. Ignore all those gushing reviews on here - find some paint to watch dry instead.

There are many factors in this film which - in theory - would make it right up my street. The historical context of a dark time in 20th century Europe; the conflicting characters and the chance for a close-up look at a really convincing bad guy; apparent reference to ancient pagan gods and so on. And fabulous write ups and sparkling recommendations from friends, too.

All I got was a fairy tale. With your actual fairies in it. Maybe my expectations were raised unduly by the translation - this guy isn't Pan, he's a faun. The fantasy factor here isn't dark, weird or terrifying - it's childish, like another Harry Potter. The history doesn't fascinate me. The violence doesn't give me a chilling sense of the horror of the regime - it's just horrible. The question of whether I'm dreaming - frankly I thought A Nightmare On Elm Street did it better (seriously - and I cringed less at the bloodthirsty bits in that one).

Now I fully expect the fantasy fans to go bonkers for this, it has marvellous animation in it, and a plot formula that seems to match other films fantasy fans love (generally I don't like them, either, sorry). But why this appeals to film fans? I am at a loss. The stats show highest scores from under 18s, which is fair enough, but the mean scores are very high across the board. Everyone likes it, but I can't think of anyone - beside those who dress up as Frodo at the weekend - who I'd recommend it to. Beats me.

This film is a dilemma for me. The first half just bounced along. The music was perfect. The energy pulled me along with it, seeing what felt to me like real people's insight into the serious subject matter. Interesting subject matter, interesting characters with motivation, who I cared about. You do laugh at things, even when serious stuff is going on most of the time. I didn't think it could get any better.

And then in a blink of an eye (about an hour in, maybe), it all went to pieces. It dawdled slowly through clichés. I felt like I knew what was coming, and I didn't even care. It was implausible, and at times boring enough for me to lose concentration.

Part of the problem is that it is (as another reviewer noted) about 20 minutes too long. How come are there film directors - talented ones - who haven't yet noticed that 90 minutes is generally enough? 8/10 for the brilliant first half.

There are marvels in Seachd, particularly in the scenery. It's even a little bit enchanting - the old man is an intriguing character and a couple of the fairy tales are interesting enough. But that's where it runs out, really. This is a collection of fairy tales, and mostly they're too childish for an adult audience. The child protagonist is unengaging, and there's not enough plot or characterisation to make a whole film.

I love to see films about places like Skye, and about the social reality of an isolated community with a living but marginalised language. But this isn't enough, and I came away wondering if had the film had been in English, would we ever have heard about it? I guess it's of interest if you're into Gaelic culture or are learning the language. It is a startling backdrop - about 4 of my 6 points are for the scenery alone. That only leaves 2 for plot, characters and everything else - with some regret I say think twice before spending your time watching Seachd.

I had high expectations of The Queen. The reviews are sparkling - on here like everywhere else. A brilliant and representative character drama, we are told. I have to say I didn't spot it.

I did laugh. In the right places too - the jokes are good. And Mirren performs excellently, of course. But this script...!?! What is this supposed to be? It's a silly story, literally reminiscent of The Royle Family. Neither Queen, nor Blair, nor Royal family are at all plausible. It's like a cheap, made-for-TV ITV drama, with very expensive sets.

Where it fails most utterly is in capturing the mood of the nation at that memorable time. Like most of the reviewers I remember this time well and this reflects my recollection of events not at all. The emphasis seems to be way off. There is great attention lavished upon odd, relatively obscure events. I am prepared to believe that maybe life was truly like this for a small minority of aristocracy-obsessed Sun readers, but for the rest of us it really wasn't. It comes across as if contrived to make a point - I'm not sure exactly what - but fails to do so because of the implausible script.

I think my disappointment may be down to off-the-mark expectations. I expected a) an intelligent treatment of the Queen as a subject and b) quality film-making (which can typically shine through regardless of subject matter). I found neither - it's about Diana, not Elizabeth, and the film-making is naff.

I was also disappointed by the treatment of Blair - I felt like I was watching Rik Mayal as Alan B'stard. Mrs Blair is particularly one-dimensional as the unhelpful, anti-monarchy first lady (has she been cast like this purely for being Catholic?).

I can only assume that the delighted reviews are from Diana's many fans, or at least individuals deeply interested in her and her legacy - I suspect this group will enjoy the film. Enthusiastic royalists who just want to see their heroes portrayed on screen may also like it. However if you're looking for a historical treatment, an intelligent review of whether monarchy can remain relevant, or a period study of Britain in 1997 you'll have to look elsewhere.

I approached Sex And The City as someone who liked, but was not an obsessive fan of, the TV series. I wasn't asking for high art, but I did expect a better-than-average episode of light entertainment.

SATC is a romantic character comedy, and it lives or dies on the portrayal of the four primary characters. Unfortunately for me, the film died on at least three out of four.

The biggest let down was Samantha. On TV, an inspiring, charismatic character with a pattern of comic turns. Here though, she was a one-dimensional figure of fun. I attribute this to the script, and possibly to direction - Cattrall is a star on TV so it can't be just down to her.

This made me scrutinise the others. Miranda is a sour-faced, unlikeable grumpy mother. Charlotte is silly and giggling and lives in on a cloud - and she was the best character in the film for me. Both one-dimensional. The lead - Carrie - was never my favourite, but her shortcomings are laid bare here. She's so shallow I found it impossible to care about her, which pretty much busts the premise for the movie.

The second hour dragged on, and I struggled to pay attention. I found myself wondering why I cared about this implausible, uber-upper-middle-class bunch. The poor one is a successful New York lawyer, remember. And by the time Carrie popped up to read her clichéd prose, it really grated.

Excess use of make up and facial close-up, and of pathetic fallacy did nothing to redeem it. Some of the laughs, though, were instantaneous good ones. This for me elevates "Sex And The City" to 3 from 2 out of 10. I don't find myself looking back now at the gags and chuckling - I left them in the cinema.

I felt this did no justice to the TV series. If you've seen only the film, don't let it put you off - the series is more subtle and it's structure around episode themes really works. It also certainly has nothing to offer the film fan.

This film is stylish, funny, baffling and enigmatic. And it's all about Morvern for me. She wanders around spookily, and to begin with somehow I thought she was shrewd and wise. And then she seems mindless, childlike, selfish, inconsiderate. I found her unexplained, out-of-place south-east English accent worked remarkable well somehow. It's never spelt out - and I'm left with a character who I think is a bit of both, a contrast and a conflict. I'll never really know of course - almost as if she were a real person. I like that ambiguity.

There are other aspects of the film I liked. It's visually quite striking, and some of the freakish stereotype characters are quite scary (the publishers, the loutish lads).

I found the dialogue hard to make out at times, and the flow of events at times arbitrary or inexplicable. I, as a great fan of the ambiguous ending, felt a little frustrated at the unfulfilling ending. But it was well worth putting up with these flaws for a film I found quite stimulating.

I'm all for innovation and creativity. Quite happy with weird films. But this is just a film of bugs coming and going, going about their normal daily business. Yes, of course they're nicely photographed, and the flowers they visit have lovely bright colours. But it's not really a film, is it?

I tried with Microcosmos. At first, I though I was waiting for the dialogue to kick in. But no. And then, I thought the beetle activity would form into a plot - maybe it does, but I simply couldn't get it. I think it was this belief - that it would somehow form itself into a story - that kept me from walking out. But when it finally ended I was none the wiser, and wished I hadn't bothered.

I'm fascinated by many of the ideas in Offside. The political and social context is a winning formula for a film. The lead character is interesting and her passion and her dilemma are relevant and intriguing, but I found the film itself ever so dull.

My theory on this is that Iranian (and possibly other Islamic) storytelling is a hard medium for me, as a westerner, to relate to. I expect film to be designed, to look the way it does on purpose, and because of that, to be different from walking around in daily life, and different from a home video made by a teenager. I've been left with the same feeling about every Iranian film I can remember except for "The Cow", and about several other stories from a similar cultural background. "Offside" has at least finally lead me to spot this pattern, and sadly I may not bother with any more Iranian films because of it.