Reviews

Some decent cinematography and actors all do fine, which is some feat given the dross of a story they have to tell. The plot is woeful, with a lack of cohesion - looks like it was written on the back of a fag packet after a few too many wines by some duff without much imagination, then turned into a film by others who have little respect for audience. Just throw together a few good looking folks and a few stereotypical sci-fi monsters, have a few high energy chase and fight scenes, and there you go, that's a movie. No need to worry about plot, character development or things making any kind of sense. There just doesn't seem to be any good reason for so many things that happen. The entire premise of the film lacks clarity, such that someone has to appear late on and explain the whole premise in a little monologue, which is always a bad sign, as if the writers are admitting they don't know how to tell a coherent story through the medium of cinema. While that tactic works fine to tie up any loose ends in an episode of Scooby-doo, here it just raises more unanswered questions and does little to help make sense of this movie or understand its purpose. I very seldom give such low scores but I don't feel I can justify going above 2 in this case.

Getting your comeuppance? The past coming back to haunt you? Never give in and go get revenge on those that wronged you? Fair enough as the drivers of a story, I guess, if it makes for an interesting and believable tale. This one starts with a fair bit of intrigue, as a mature conman seeks to exploit his newly hooked online date, but then turns rather fanciful as the story opens out beyond the here and now. The big back story could have served as a focus in its own right - there's certainly enough material there for a good yarn. Instead, its inclusion is merely to provide justification for an elaborate revenge trick. There are twists and revelations aplenty but also quite a few lazy coincidences and scenes which rob it of any real credibility, and as soon as that goes, you're outside the story just looking at a bunch of actors going through the motions. Don't get me wrong, these are great technicians and the direction just about keeps you watching, but in the absence of any inner conflicts even they struggle to imbue the protagonists with the requisite depth to make them interesting and rescue the naff, woolly plot line from ridicule. This happened, then that happened, but then blah-blah-blah, while all the time blah-blah-blah, so blah...you get the idea. The end (rather than the ending) is a relief. I can't justify having spent however long it is watching it last night but at least one redeeming feature is its forgettability so I shan't have to worry about that for long.

A good performance from the lead and nicely shot on the whole, it starts out quite atmospheric and hooks you in. The film tries to be more than it needs to be, in terms of genre, probably to appeal to a wider viewership, which is something that can be levelled at much Hollywood cinema which falls into the 'drama' billing. It's as if there's a fear that a character study, following a woman looking to rebuild her life after prison, is too dull a topic to merit the floor on its own and therefore needs spicing up with a dollop of collateral victims of her crime out for revenge. The result is an unsatisfactory mishmash of a film, one with an identity crisis, from which we learn next to nothing about what it is to be human (= key purpose of a good drama). The revenge element denies the protagonist's personal story time and legs to develop and other side stories and support characters, who seem to offer something interesting, fall by the wayside as the 'thriller' story takes centre ground. This is a shame because it starts promisingly and there definitely is enough material to work with to create a fulfilling and meaningful tale, if only the creators believed it would be worthwhile to do so. As for the big 'revelation', that was an insult to the audience and removed any last vestiges of credibility the film may have had as a character study. Guilt is an interesting and complex human emotion and it is unclear why the authors would choose to run a mile from it in this way - it detracts no end from the main character's complexity and from the story as a whole, making it all too neat and easy to process, reducing it to child fodder, with nothing to think about anymore once it's over.

Brilliant young cop gets teamed up with brilliant but burnt out cynical old cop. Just the first in a series of cliches that make up this film. I wanted to switch off just a few minutes in but saw it through out of respect for the director, who went on to turn out Hurt Locker and Zero Dark 30, both excellent films. You would absolutely never guess this was also one of hers, though. The action scenes are generally tight - and if action were my thing I'd probably rate it more highly - but the depth of character, tension and drama that characterise the other two films of hers I've seen, not to mention the quality of acting, are in relatively short supply. Sure, it predates the others by 20 odd years, but if this was KB cutting her teeth, she's come a long way since.

What a story. Emotions in utter tumult after watching this. (What to do next? Well, I guess I'll finish the review. But why? What's the point?) It has a sci-fi premise that would ordinarily put me off but the whirling story never veers off its hub of exploring love. And anyway, the SF treatment is administered by Tom Wilkinson, who never disappoints. Speaking of actors, the ever brilliant Kate Winslet is at the top of her game here. It's so easy to go over the top when you're playing the crazy one and just take us into zany land and leave reality behind, but the story demands that she keeps it more real and she exercises such exquisite control. I wonder how Jim Carrey would have played that role! Don't get me wrong, he's fantastic too here as the more down-to-earth one - probably his best performance that I've seen and a clever bit of casting. Wait, I've got an odd feeling in my gut. Oh, dear! I think I need to go and run in a big open field for a bit. I might be back, .

What a family! These are not your glam gangsters - seedy, paranoid; gotta keep it low-key - don't repaint the living room - too ostentatious. Low budget; no wastage; tight dialogue; well acted; some good sounds to boot from old hippy Dad and co. The humour's well black and the characters well credible (I'm sure they live just up the road). I loved them all, the conniving and the hilarious bodge jobs. It gets a bit out of hand (read that with whatever intonation you want). It's an absolute hoot and a little diamond of a film that'll survive repeat viewings.

I caught the second half of this flick and was engaged by its pace; it's well shot and enhanced by the soundtrack. Jack N is convincing and the rest do OK too, with some very (very, very) little cameos by such as Harry Dean Stanton and Micky Rourke. I saw the whole film a few days later and found I wasn't quite as enthusiastic about it. Some of the characters seemed less credible and a bit cliché. The story plays out like a suspense thriller/whodunnit, which is not really my thing, but there's just about enough interest to keep one watching (and there's always Jack) and the film's merits just about counteract its shortcomings (which are mainly plot-related and the fact there are too many lazy coincidences to serve its progression). The ending is a tad disappointing, plot-wise, as it seems a bit of a cop out to me, although the very final scene offers some form of redemption by refocusing our attention on the character study that I guess is its main aim/strength.

The TV channel showing this described it as a 'drama' and a quick check of the IMDb score of 6.9 convinced me to at least give it a go. I tend not to look much further than that so as to minimise preconceptions, although with hindsight I wish I'd noticed that the IMDb genre also made mention of fantasy and horror, which ain't my thing.

It starts not unpromisingly as a teen girl and her beloved dog are thrust upon her father by his ex-wife while she flies off for some extended work project abroad. The mongrel (there are a few references to its race) is unwelcome to Dad and his apartment administrator and is kicked out to fend for itself on the streets.

A rather confusing couple of hours ensued watching an unconvincing tale of animal abuse and revenge. I grew increasingly dismayed as the father/daughter story, which had potential, was overshadowed by the 'fantasy' and 'horror' elements in the dog's story. I even mistook it for (unfunny) comedy at first (I often struggle to know if a scene is meant to inspire horror or laughter).

I guess the dog's the star and if you like your animals imbued with human qualities and taking the lead role, this may be for you. Even so, the story itself lacks any real drama and disappoints at just about every turn, taking the most obvious/ridiculous, but not the most interesting. There are so many scenes of inconsequence that it begs the question whether it needs 2 hours. 10-15 mins would probably do the trick.

It was a tragedy, watching this life unravel so. I was very moved and wore a frown for days (weeks? months?). I couldn't bring myself to watch it again when it came round on TV, for fear of plunging to the same depths of despair the first experience had inflicted on me. But I did. I now hide behind a big stupid grin. I don't know why the tragedy overshadowed the comedy the first time round but this time the humour really shone through. It's so funny! The attention to detail is incredible. Nothing's left to chance and you won't spot a single incongruity that wasn't intended. Best film I've seen for a good while. A profoundly satisfying experience.

I watched this with my 6-year-old daughter and we had a great time, laughed a lot, mostly at the same things and found it very entertaining. It's a more frivolous, less faithful version, with little sense of the social repression of the time it's supposedly set in, and some of the incongruities are a bit difficult, but it's funny and there are some good performances (Tom Hollander's Mr Collins stood out for both of us for sheer comic value and we found ourselves rewinding his bits). It will inevitably meet with criticism from some Austen fans (of which I am one), but it has its niche; I would probably only watch it again under similar circumstances but would do so happily.

I'm at a crossroads with this. I tuned in to hear some Spanish and got quite hooked on the story, as there was some real intrigue and the potential for a good yarn. However, I'm just over halfway through the series and it seems to have deteriorated into a 'whodunnit' with so many characters and possible motives being thrown at the audience, through its time shifts to before and after the crime, as to become quite tiresome. It's a shame, as there is much good about the show, not least some of the acting, which is excellent; but as others have pointed out, it badly needs an edit to condense it down to a more manageable duration. It takes real skill to draw out a story for as long as this without losing the audience's attention and in this viewer's case I'm not sure I care enough any longer to find out who did it. I've picked up a few handy Spanish colloquialisms on the ride so far, though, which I'll put to use on my next Iberian foray.

I watched it due to its high score and 'drama' billing, suggesting there would be something by way of character complexity. in fact, I found the lead role portrayed quite stereotypicalIy, lacking depth or dimension, and that's a problem when he's pretty ubiquitous. Did DW really get decorated for this? Some of the support roles are more convincingly played, lending a greater sense of motive for their actions, and perhaps more focus on their stories might have raised the interest level. Ultimately, it's a watchable but pretty anodyne and forgettable film that, despite the 'drama' billing, sheds little light on the human condition.

A one-act play, centring on two sets of parents in a Brooklyn apartment discussing a violent episode between their children, sandwiched between a very short, speech-free prologue and epilogue as credits roll. The ostensibly liberal but clearly uptight mother and apparently more conciliatory but hen-pecked father of the victim invite the aggressor's parents (she overtly more community-spirited, he more put out as he manages a work crisis on his mobile) over to talk about the incident, as responsible adults, but the ensuing clash of attitudes prompts a descent into the sort of puerile behaviour that was precisely the intended subject of the conversation.

Well cast, the four players interpret the sharp, witty lines with aplomb, one's sympathies leaping around from character to character as they gradually unravel, but without ever settling anywhere for long as each in turn cedes any moral high ground as quickly as they gained it. There is scorn aplenty (subtle and blatant) as rivalries and alliances are repeatedly struck and dashed. One can forgive the improbability of the meeting surviving several junctures when it would more naturally end because the dialogue continues to give.

I guess you can't go far wrong with such a script in the hands of this director and group of actors and it makes for a very watchable film, although I'm guessing the stage is its real home and I'll look out for it there.

This film has an interesting theme and the potential to be much more than what it is. The central character arrives in Singapore after his brother's death there and, over the indeterminate ensuing period, dreamily drifts into his dead brother's ex-pat life - staying with his family and floating around the seedy bar he ran - while having nightmares/flashbacks about his problematic marriage back home. So, the breakdown of a marriage on the one hand and bereavement on the other. Rich ground for exploring human feelings, yet I didn't really get a sense of his (or affected others') pain or any soul-searching to make sense of his situation. A good drama seldom neatly resolves all the key 'dramas', centring instead on the human condition and the nature of relationships. This film attempts to do that, but the lack of character development makes it difficult to identify with the protagonists and to be moved by or care much about their plight. The actors make a decent fist of a narrative that sometimes wants for coherence (not all scenes/subplots seem relevant or in some cases are underdeveloped) and the largely insipid dialogue, which, with few exceptions, reveals little about the characters and their motives and needs some attention to lend them greater depth. The overall effect is of a potentially relevant piece of work made somewhat prematurely, before the authors had really decided what story it was they wanted to tell or how best to tell it. Despite the score, I'd be tempted to give it a second chance some time to see if I was just being unreceptive. OK, 3 years later, 2nd viewing accomplished. Enjoyed it more. 3/10? It's better than that. Characters seemed more life-like; some good dialogue; quite atmospheric; may linger.