Reviews

6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
Mediocre and forgettable coming of age drama
20 August 2015
Tracy is a freshman student with no friends and a superiority complex (do we have a correlation here?), who's disillusioned that her lack of popularity isn't suddenly transformed when she moves to New York and starts college. It obviously didn't occur to her that wherever she goes she'll still be herself. It is also a rude awakening for her to find that once at college her assumed genius does not set her above those around her now she's in a more competitive peer group - in short she's not only dull but decidedly average as well.

Feeling particularly low she latches on to her "older" step sister to be Lola, a Bohemian human twitter feed who sprouts a constant diatribe about anything and everything, has no discernible talent, who seems to think her "popularity" will somehow equate to success, and yet somehow has made it to 30 without having to face the reality that it won't.

Of course Tracy recognises that Lola is a long overdue car crash waiting to happen but cynically hops on for the ride as a source of material for her writing. So both physically and metaphorically they set off on a journey that allows Lola to realise her short-comings forces for Tracy's to hold up a mirror to her own life, though neither seem to do much with this new found self-knowledge.

Because college students in films are invariable played by actresses and actors in their mid-20's the actual age gap between the "sisters" is somewhat less than it's supposed to be so the pair look more like contemporaries than big and little sister which gives an air of unbelievably to their relationship. Not a lot happens in the film, there's no great character arcs, both the characters and dialogue are unbelievable - it comes across as a pseudo-sophisticated Woody Allen stage play that's inexplicably been put on the big screen. It's not terrible, there are some laughs, but like Tracy it comes across as both mediocre and ultimately forgettable. At least at less than 90 minutes it's short enough not to overstay it's welcome. Perhaps it will say more to Americans or more specifically New Yorkers, given the importance of the location to the narrative.
60 out of 105 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
San Andreas (2015)
7/10
Surprisingly Good Disaster Movie
29 May 2015
I went in to this with admittedly very low expectations, however I genuinely enjoyed the 2 hour action packed adventure. The premise is not exactly original; following the worst earthquake in history The Rock, a helicopter rescue pilot, sets out to rescue his ex-wife and then with her help his daughter.

The science is not too shaky (if you'll forgive the pun); major earthquake along the San Andreas fault is not beyond the bounds of possibility and the scientists subplot is only mildly irritating and does not detract from the action much.

And there's a lot of action! The Rock + ex-wife and daughter + friends bounce from one disaster to the next, barely scraping though intact in their request to re-unite. Each of these near-misses are edge of the seat stuff - you know at the back of your mind they're going to get through it but still you find yourself holding your breath each time. The stunts are excellent and the special effects are brilliant in their realism - yeah they're a bit over the top but it genuinely looks like they destroyed San Francisco in their quest to make this film.

It's not Shakespeare and no-one is expecting any of the leads to win best actor at next years Oscars for this but Dwayne proves a strong lead with the rest of the cast doing an amiable job with the exception of Aussie actor Hugo Johnstone-Burt who seems to be doing a Lee Evans impression in his attempt to play a Brit.

If you like disaster movies you'll love this; everyone else switch your brain in to neutral and enjoy the thrill ride!
18 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
sub Hunger Games wannabe meets The Matrix
20 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
So the basic premise behind the series is that based on their personality people are split in to different "factions" that are given names like Araldite, Candies and Gormless. Members of these factions are given roles within the society, I forget / don't know what each faction is or their role in society but basically a big portion of the population are hippies whilst one faction is really in to extreme sports like Free Running, Base Jumping, Absailing and no doubt they've got a rad skate park to hang out at but you don't get to see that in this film. All these factions are ruled over by a malevolent dictatorship headed up by Kate Winslet as Sarah Palin.

Insurgent picks up where Divergent finished; whilst the Divergents have gone to live with the Ewoks the Imperial Stormtroopers killed a load of hippies and discovered a magic box that they were hiding. They want to use this magic box to kill all the Jedi's but the catch is only someone who's strong with the force can open the magic box. So Sarah Palin sends out Agent Smith and his cronies to check the general population for high levels of midichlorians or something and hunt down the rebel alliance.

Low and behold the only person who can open the magic box is girl next door come messiah, Katniss erm I mean Tris, who promptly gives herself up to the evil Emperor Palin and is subsequently inserted in to The Matrix and forced to open the magic box. The promise of a dark Empire Strikes Back type storyline does not come to fruition instead we are subjected to a futuristic feature-length episode of The O.C. With a few twists that are so blatantly telegraphed they are more Kit Kat than Curly Wurly, Agent Smith and Sarah Palin are defeated and the evil empire is destroyed.

Divergent was a poor-mans Hunger Games but whereas the latter has steadily got worse Insurgent has quickly declined, and Divergent wasn't that good in the first place. Not so much the middle film of a trilogy more a second film in a series where everything is wrapped up neatly but the door is very much left open for the next film which will no doubt be more of the same but bigger and badder. And "badder" in a bad way not a good way if you know what I mean. Save yourself £15; from the supermarket pick up a bag of popcorn or large bag of Doritos (if you sprinkle them with grated cheese and put them in a preheated oven for a minute or two they taste just like the ones from the cinema), go home and watch Hunger Games on DVD in the comfort of your own home.
5 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Conjuring (2013)
3/10
Clichéd, unoriginal horror movie without any horror
8 August 2013
I am a fan of Insidious and with a score of 8 on IMDb I'd got modest hopes for this film even if the title seemed a little lame.

The film opens up with an interview of two of the characters that helps to set the scene as being based on a True Story. This so called authenticity is somehow meant to make the events more shocking, and perhaps it does, it was something Amityville Horror used with great success. However it is no substitute for a good story and that's wear the film falls down.

From the opening scene where the family arrive at their new secluded home were we're given a clue as to how clichéd the movie is going to be:

Husband: "do you hear that?" Wife: "what there's no sound" (or words to that effect) Husband: "exactly"

The dialogue is hokey at best and often cringe-worthy. The storyline is linear and obvious (no clever twists), almost to the point where you think it can't be that obvious but it is. But the biggest flaw is the lack of tension; it's not creepy, scary, shocking or gory, at least one of which is needed for a horror movie. Total failure as a in that regard so I gave it 3/10.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Offender (2012)
7/10
The lengths one man will go to for revenge
13 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I was intrigued as to why this was scoring so low on IMDb yet there was a suspicious lack of scaithing reviews - a film that is so hated usually inspires a few rants, yet nothing. So I decided to judge for myself.

I've read comparisons to Scum and Prophet, obvious comparisons due to the location being in a borstal, but as the story was of a man seeking vigilante justice comparisons to Death Wish and the totally implausible Law Abiding Citizen spring to mind.

Tommy his a hard working youth who's starting a family with his girlfriend when his life is turned upside down by a gang of four armed robbers. It seems clichéd but at least the back story is not quite as obvious as it appears on paper as you learn how Tommy got to this point with just a hint of the man he is on the outside through flash-backs. Now if you can believe the slightly unlikely main plot device that Tommy can commit a crime to get sent to both the same jail and wing as the men/boys he wants justice from then you can buy in to the story - as far as I'm concerned that is the only weak point.

Joe Cole is convincing as Tommy, a man who's world has been turned upside down and has gone to extreme lengths to rid himself of the guilt and anger he feels. There's a strong cast who bring a believability to these characters and the portrayal of borstal is grim and harsh yet feels very real.

The were 18 people in the 16:40 Monday afternoon showing I went to and none walked out. I don't think it's a classic but I gave it a 7/10 and would recommend to anyone who likes a decent British movies along the lines of Ill Manors and Kidulthood to go and see it whilst it's still showing.
13 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Let Me In (I) (2010)
8/10
An excellent if somewhat un-needed remake
9 November 2010
Warning: Spoilers
What's sad is that this film would not exist without the Swedish original that was made just 2 years ago, if only American and British audiences would watch a film with subtitles this would never have been made. However in it's own rights it is still an excellent film, though ultimately offers nothing new to the original story.

Yet it does have it's positives, some minor improvements to the story. SPOILERS: The hunting by The Father / Caretaker is more believable than the original as his downfall is more down to bad luck (than a very stupid mistake of putting himself in a corner that is too amateurish from an experience killer) even though in this remake his "tiredness" of his lot in life is more pointed and more expected. Also Abby's rumbling stomach demonstrates her restraint that was not as obvious in the the original such a subtle but effective thing, and The Policeman hunting her is more appropriate than the grieving drunk in the original. Yet these are minor differences and the overall story is the same.

The story itself is quite layered and full of ambiguity. On the surface it's almost a Shakespearian love story (something that's hinted at by references to Romeo + Juliet like the same way Donnie Darko had parallels to the book Watership Down which was mentioned in the film) about 2 twelve year olds. One a 200 years vampire stuck in a pre-adolescents body, and the other a relentlessly bullied and neglected young boy. The casting is excellent, and the relationship between the 2 lead characters is beautifully portrayed. There's an awful lot left open to interpretation, in both the film and the nature of their relationship, which is what makes this such a good film as the viewer takers away their own beliefs. Is her love for Owen (and her Father / Caretaker before him) genuine, or is it purely manipulation, or more likely something in between.

Even the title itself has dual meaning, do we take it literally about the need of vampires to be invited in, or do we take it more figuratively about inviting her into your heart?

I've seen comparisons to Twilight, which is quite frankly laughable, as the two films have almost nothing in common. In recent cinema Vampires have been portrayed as thrill-seeking party-animals in Lost Boys, ultra-cool super-hero's in Blade and Underworld, pathetic brooding teens in Twilight, and glamorous killers in Interview With The Vampire. Here we see a side to vampires that is original and refreshing (something that was hinted at in Anne Rice's stories) the ultimate tragicness of being immortal. Abby is not glamorous or cool, she's almost pathetically lonely, her only companion an old man who acts as her caretaker, and when the vampire in her is revealed it's more animal than human, a curse that she's a slave to.

MORE Spoilers: In the end you're left with mixed emotions, initially elation as the two leads seem to rescue each other both physically and metaphorically, yet sadness as you realise that it's ultimately a doomed relationship, and instead of being rescued Owen will become her most brutalised victim as the realisation of what the future must hold for him becomes apparent. It's a beautifully told story, that's part love-story and part horror, that works on several levels so can be enjoyed as either or both, that is open to interpretation that will leave viewers with plenty to discuss and debate after.
10 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed