spikey-5's Reviews

Peter Pan 2: Return to Never Land (2002)

1/10

28 December 2010

A brief synopsis of this film's plot sounds, at first, to be an ideal and suitable sequel to the original and yet ....

This film isn't simply bad, it is heart breakingly terrible. The voice casting alone, above the myriad other flaws, completely ruins the film and prevents any suspension of disbelief. The main child characters sound too adult to ignore, and London in the Blitz is apparently a town in the United states judging by the accents and slang. The mindless Americanisms (schmaltzly "I love you's" called out by British troops leaving for battle in a hallmark way, thoughtless rehashing of details from the original and rushed personal development by the lead) further drag it into the mire.

The plot is predictable and pedestrian, in that you can almost see the numbers over which it was painted. Heartstring remain untugged, blood remains unstirred and yawns unstiffled.

This film contains none of J. M Barries style, appeal or themes, but instead slaps characters with the same name into a bland repeat of the actions and events he wrote, their sequel tactics writ small and emotionless. Even the youngsters at which it is aimed will sneer and loose interest long before the awful teeny band sings its squeaky cacophony over the welcome end credits!

3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Darklands (1996)

1/10

Got to be in the bottom 5 movies ever made

9 April 2008

There is simply nothing to redeem this awful rip off of the wicker man. While other commentators seem to feel overly kind in that they mention it being similar, it was clearly an unashamed copy without the style or intellect. The pacing is terrible. the acting rotten (poor Jon Finch being the exception) and the directing haphazard.

Failing at both intrigue and suspense, this so called horror simply becomes a waste of two hours of your life. Watching it will make you feel that A) you've seen the ideas done better before somewhere else and B) that if this film got the green light you and a few mates could probably get drunk with a cell phone and do a better job. You would be 100% correct in both assumptions.

3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

A Midsummer Night's Dream (1996)

9/10

What would the RSC do if they had TV special FX?

19 July 2006

Warning: Spoilers

This performance of Shakespeares best play by the Royal Shakespeare company is a visual gem. Contempory without throwing out the setting or the themes, presenting the original language in a way to appease both traditionalists and the MTV generation.

Of course, if anyone can do the play right its the RSC, but even they have not always hit the mark. This is by far the best envisioning they've done in the past few decades and the ability to pull off a few minor tricks with TV cameras that couldn't be done live on stage only adds to the whole film.

A nod to the origins of their craft is presented when most of the players play two roles, one in Faerie and one in Athens. The Duke is also Oberon, his bride Hypolita also Titania whilst their attendant Faeries are also Courtiers of the Noble couple. Even the players of Pyramis and Thisby are also the inner circle of Titania's grotto and all of this adds to the question of how much is real and how much is Dream.

The simplicity of set and props half convinces you time and again that it is a Staged show and not a movie, with Faerie scenes feeling very magical in an 80's pop video kind of way. (don't hold that against it, this is not matched by terrible pop video editing or camera work in anyway). The Costumes (especially the use of bright colours and single shade outfits) adds to the pop video feel without it detracting from the story.

All in all this is far better than the Kevin Kline Hollywood attempt at the play which lacks the same otherworldliness and basic acting talent. A Midsummernights dream told in a dreamy way without the dry throats or discomfort of summer.

7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Art of Crime (1975 TV Movie)

6/10

A shame it never went further than the pilot

5 August 2005

As a Whodunnit its nothing special, but its as good as its peers. Nothing shockingly bad as one of a billion detective shows of the period. As an insight into American Roma its surprisingly good for a movie of 1975. Considering this was the height of Blacksploitation and the like, the Roma are given a fair crack of the whip. All the Gypsy stereotypes are presented as the worst possible types and they attempt to show that not all Roma are criminals by making the hero a 'good Gypsy'.

The hero, Roman Grey, is a charismatic and believable character. Both as a detective and a 'philospher among thieves' as they have tried to paint him. As a character caught between two worlds, an educated man and a virtuous Roma he is easy to identify with and empathise with. And then of course there is all the cultural colour intended to be the hook for the TV show.

All in all, its an acceptable way to spend an hour and a half, it'll educate you a little on how some Roma are. It's just as shame that the TV series it was commissioned to pilot never got of the ground.

3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

War of the Worlds (2005)

There are no words to describe how bad this movie is ...

1 July 2005

having just sat through this film with a bunch of friends, we are now engaged in a non stop attempt to find words to express our disgust. I have a constant chorus of voices sat behind me right now saying 'what the hell was that all about ...' Never have we all agreed so completely on a movie, and never have we found it impossible to find a redeeming feature. The Special effects are painfully bad, the script childish and amateur. Every actors performance was obviously a secret attempt to deride Spielberg by being deliberately bad. The characters were so inhuman, so opposite to how anyone would act, as to have convinced several of my gang to believe the film was intended to be a comedy taking the mickey out of serious movies.

It was really terribly bad. How it ever got made is beyond me, but that it was allowed a release by the stellar crew of film makers connected to it beggars belief. Every scene was painful to watch, the ones I manage to stay awake for and the rest of the party remained sitting through. Those of us who didn't walk out in frustration and utter disbelief wished we had done by the sudden and rushed ending.

I beseech you, save you money and 2 hours of your lives and just poke needles into your eyes instead. It will certainly be more pleasant. There is none of the brain dead popcorn entertainment you expect from Cruise, no simple but well directed Spielberg magic. There is just unremitting drivel, a butterball of a turkey.

3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

spikey-5

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed