Change Your Image
FinerFilmFanatic
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Marlow Murder Club (2024)
Very poorly acted
With the exception of Samantha Bond, who plays Judith, and Jo Martin, who plays Suzie, the cast in this is surprisingly bad. The actresses who play Becks and Tanika are particularly bad, as is the actor who plays DS Perry. And I'm afraid it spoiled the drama for me.
I've read the book (quite good), so was looking forward to the TV version. Unfortunately, it was adapted for the screen by the author, and I think it would have benefitted from someone else taking over. There are connections in the author's head that don't make it to the screen. A different screenwriter would have filled the gaps. Another problem is that some of the characters are completely different to the book. Becks, in particular, is almost like another character. In the book, she's a meek little mouse. Here, she's strident. So, the dynamic between the three main characters changes. Suzie is also quite different. In the book, she charges around like a bull in a china shop. Here, she's more considered.
Obviously, some plot points get abandoned in the adaptation, others are changed, and some characters are introduced (for no reason). It just all seemed a bit muddled to me. As I said, I think it would have benefitted from a screenwriter who hadn't written the source material.
There are (so far) two sequels to the first novel. The 2nd was disappointing. The third was just plain awful. So I won't be watching any more of these if they make them.
A Christmas Princess (2019)
It falls apart with 15 minutes to go
For the most part, this is your average Prince-meets-commoner fairy story. It drags a bit in places, but the story isn't bad, and is worth a 5/10. But with 15 minutes until the end, when we know there's going to be some tension involves, it just becomes utterly, utterly ridiculous. Jessica's reaction to Lady Eliza's appearance completely betrays everything we've learned about Jessica. Furthermore, her reaction to how the situation unfolds, with Jack's reactions to what is going on, makes the scene even more unbelievable. We can all see he's angry by what's happening, yet she treats it like it's all his fault. It's shockingly poor writing. Tension could have been introduced in many other ways. But not this.
That aside, this film suffers from absolutely dreadful casting. The two leads are very charming, as are Jessica's parents and the staff at the restaurant. The others are terrible. The most glaring thing is that they have
ABSOLUTELY
NO
TALENT
FOR
ACCENTS.
The woman who plays the queen is especially bad. In a country of 350 million, they couldn't find one woman to do a convincing accent. There are no words to describe how bad she is. Absolutely abysmal.
She's closely followed by the guy who plays Rupert. I seriously thought he was aiming for a South African accent. He is truly awful. But not as bad as the queen.
Then there are the inconsistencies. Jessica's restaurant is failing yet she's reluctant to take this job that would solve all of her problems. They seem to spend days simply coming up with a menu for this banquet she is catering. There's no hint of any rush about being able to source ingredients for the thing. The interior of the supposedly luxury hotel looks like a 2-star hotel, while the "dining room" is clearly a bar. They barely blurred out the Chevvy logo. No idea why. "My SUV is out back" -- meanwhile, they come out of the "hotel" on the main street.
This was clearly done on the cheap, which I can forgive. What I can't forgive is betraying the viewer by making the fiercely independent female lead suddenly have a breakdown. And I also can't forgive the casting.
I cannot stress enough how bad the woman who plays the queen is. Absolutely, utterly, abysmally awful.
The film was written and directed by the same person, Fred Olen Ray. Looking at his output, most of his films get below 5-star ratings. The man has no talent for writing or directing. Why does he keep getting directing jobs??
Meeting Mr. Christmas (2022)
Exceptionally badly written and poor casting
It's hard to convey how poor this film is. It was written and directed by the same person, and she has the talent for neither job. She also stars as the sister. She fares slightly better as an actress. Slightly. Technically, there is no variety to the shots. In a café with her bestie, the camera just jumps back and forth, depending on who is talking. The same is true in other scenes. There's very little visually to keep you engaged.
Rather than a coherent story, there is a sequence of scenes. Characters are introduced and scenes happen, but you don't for one second feel engaged with the story or have an affinity with anyone. Perhaps because the main character is so unlikeable and the actress who plays her is so poor. You barely know this woman, yet when you hear that she was dumped on her wedding day, you think, "Yeah, I can understand why." All of the other characters just come across as bland and/or insincere.
I did not enjoy this for one second.
The dialogue is atrocious and it's badly delivered.
The acting is poor.
There is not one frame of originality in the film.
Avoid.
Would I watch another film written by Laura Mitchell? No.
Would I watch another film directed by Laura Mitchell? No.
Would I watch another film starring Greta Carew-Johns? No.
Madame X (2021)
Abysmal
When watching this, the viewer should remember 2 things.
1) the audio was largely rerecorded for the film
2) the visuals were largely rerecorded for the film.
Her Instagram Stories was full of clips of her either on a sound stage or in a recording booth. There's no way of knowing how much of this came from the actual night of the concert.
With that out of the way, this is a truly terrible show. She now positions herself as both an artist and a warrior. She is neither. She is a faded pop star. The album that this tour is promoting was a monumental flop. Thanks to the multiple formats it was released on, it arrived in most charts at #1, and by week 3 it had sunk without trace. None of the songs released from the album made a dent on the charts. Some might question the sense of having a tour on the back of such a flop, but this artist, this fighter for justice, decide a new format of tour was the answer. She had no way of filling the arenas she used to in the early 2000s (don't even think about the multiple nights in stadiums of the 80s and 90s!), so she chose "intimate" (read: small) venues. And even those she had trouble filling. The official stats say one thing, but the reality was something else entirely. Not to mention all the cancelled nights due to "technical difficulties".
Most of the songs here will be unknown to the average person, as they were not hits. To others, even the songs you do know will be unrecognisable, as they are so heavily autotuned (you really don't want to hear her without autotune these days).
But of course, this all depends on whether you can stand the fast editing. It should come with a warning for those who have epilepsy. It's all designed to make the show look more interesting, more energetic, and basically better than it really was. Basically, you're watching an elderly woman shuffle across a stage singing songs you don't know.
Avoid.
Get Krack!n (2017)
A badly made parody of bad daytime TV
Having watched (suffered) 3 whole episodes, I can safely say I won't be watching a 4th. I gave it a second chance (twice).
The premise is that Kate McLennan and Kate McCartney are the hosts of a "daytime" magazine show so bad that it's on at 3am. The show-within-a- show has cheap production values, and the two hosts clearly dislike presenting it, as evidenced by their constant complaining, lack of professionalism and bad language.
The funniest (using that term in its very broadest sense) item was an advert for a machine that cooks a single egg at a time. That was in episode 1. In episode 2 there was an equally useless gadget, but the idea was beyond absurd and simply not funny. And clearly they had given up making adverts because none appeared in episode 3.
The two Kates treat their guests with disdain, barely listening to answers and not really formulating coherent or intelligent questions.
In better hands, this programme COULD have been funny, but it's simply not. The gag that the show is bad wore very thin in episode 1. Having opted for a 30-minute format (for 'our' show and 'their' show), it leaves little opportunity to actually skewer the many essentials of daytime TV - diet tips, fitness, gossip, celebrity interviews, competitions, fashion, etc. The real shows recycle these elements day in, day out. This show doesn't even attempt to do one of them per week.
The "Katy Perry" episode worked on no level at all. It was obvious that Katy Perry wouldn't appear in 'our' show, let alone 'their' show, so it was a long 30 minutes of one gag that she was "on her way", when clearly she wasn't.
Absolutely nothing about the show rings true. The stupidity of the hosts, the constant spelling mistakes in the hosts' names, the 'interns' who provide elements of the show - it all just fall flat.
The show has no redeeming values. None.
Marple: Endless Night (2013)
What a terrible way to end the series
Endless Night IS an Agatha Christie story. Endless Night is NOT a Miss Marple story. So who on earth thought it would be a good idea to combine the two? The ITV series of Miss Marple has successfully shoehorned her into other non-Marple stories but this is a dismal failure.
Miss Marple is staying with a friend who has recently become widowed - this is the premise for getting Marple into the story. However, why on earth she turns up in Italy is never explained, nor why she is out and about at all times of day or night, except for the fact that they have to get Marple into the story somehow.
And this is one of the main failings of the programme - Miss Marple is hardly in it. She pops up from time to time for a minute or two, but then she's gone. There is absolutely no reason for Miss Marple to be in this story, and it feels like it. You are honestly left wondering why she's there. Surely months pass between her first appearance and the conclusion, and I honestly kept thinking, "Why is she still there?!" Another reason for this episode's failure is the voice-over from the character Michael Rogers. It just doesn't fit in with the style of a Marple story.
The final reason for this being an underwhelming episode is that simply not a lot happens. In this 2-hour (with adverts) film, the first 50 minutes is back story, and the murder doesn't happen until about 70 minutes. Those 70 minutes are dull (albeit with pretty actors), and the subsequent 50 minutes are not much better.
If the rumours are true that this is the last ever episode of Marple, it's a terrible way to end the series. There are still some Marple short stories yet to be filmed, so it would definitely be a wasted opportunity if real Marple stories were abandoned in favour of this rot.
Super Tanker (2011)
The best bad film I've seen in a long time
How you perceive this film depends on what you expect going in. If you're hoping for a high-octane disaster film with great special effects you're going to be sorely disappointed. If, on the other hand, you expect
1) a terrible story
2) special effects that look like they were created in Paint
3) terrible casting
4) terrible acting
5) terrible dialogue
6) every cliché known to man
7) even terrible costumes
then you're really going to enjoy this.
The plot, as such, has some ultra-destructive element being taken to the deepest reaches of the ocean to protect the world from Armageddon. It was contained somewhere in Canada, but due to oil drilling in the area it has to be moved. Taking it by plane is hopeless, as the speed at which it travels renders it unstable, so the only solution is to take it via the world's biggest tanker. On the way it comes up against a "rogue" wave that appears out of nowhere, despite all the latest gadgetry on board and the fact that it's constantly being tracked by satellite. Various calamities befall the ship, meaning they have to "vent" the element several times to stop it from combusting. These vents create deadly clouds that destroy anything in its path - including a plane that decides to divert JUST when it's about to go into the cloud, a cruise ship with flabby belly'd "hot" girls sipping cocktails, and Hawaii. Watch in a total absence of awe as these things are destroyed by terrible special effects.
As for the special effects, clearly the people responsible have never seen such things as a plane taking off or landing, nor have they ever looked at a cloud. You sit looking at the screen thinking, "How on earth..." Bad doesn't come close, they're hilariously awful. The green screen work is also terrible - faces that seem to melt into the background, for example, or the whole scene in the cemetery.
Then there's the casting. The guy who plays the Admiral is wrong on so many levels - completely lacking in authority, a terrible voice, and he's not helped by a uniform that looks like he's pulled it out of the fancy dress box. The female lead is played by "Jon Mack", whose career has included the dizzying heights of "FBI Agent #3". Of course, it doesn't help that the dialogue she's been saddled with is like something written by school children, but she is dire. All other actors are bad, but those two stand out.
The dialogue seems to have been cut-and-paste from every other disaster movie ever made, from the angry confrontation scenes between the military top brass, to the final lines spoken in the cemetery. You could watch this with the sound off and still know what they were saying.
There are simply too many clichés here to list, but don't be surprised to find the Chinese computer whizz that nobody can understand, the alcoholic brought in to save the day, the military who are stupid and devious, the government official who cares more about saving face than anything, and there's even a child rescuing a dog who is momentarily lost. Yes, they cram everything they can into this film!
I've given this 1 star, based on the premise that this was supposed to be a halfway decent film. But really I want to give it 10/10 as I thoroughly enjoyed every excruciating moment. If you're expecting Die Hard on a boat, forget it. If you're willing to turn your brain off for 90 minutes, you might just find you enjoy it.
Whitney Cummings: Money Shot (2010)
Not a lot of original material
I was really looking forward to watching this stand up show with Whitney Cummings. She's one of my favourite guests on the "round table" on Chelsea Lately, and I was hoping that her humour would translate into a decent stand up act. Unfortunately I was wrong.
Like many comedians today, her style is observational, commenting on the world around her, and on her own life. Unfortunately, she seems to have based her observations on watching other comedians, as there was very little I hadn't heard elsewhere - and better - before. She covers all the bases of modern stand up routines, talking about the differences between men and women, dating rituals, role play and of course sex. It's just a shame that she talks in vast generalisations, and although she occasionally adds a new punchline here or there, or gives things a little twist, frankly it wasn't enough.
Things didn't really pick up until about the last 10 minutes or so. That's not to say that they were actually good, they were just the best 10 minutes of the whole show.
As a sign of how much I didn't enjoy this show, I stopped it at least 5 times - not just to go and get something to drink, for example, but to go and do other things, only to return a few hours later to try to make it through to the end.
One final point is her delivery. She practically screeches her way through the whole show. I had to turn the volume down.
If you haven't seen a stand up show in the past decade then you might enjoy this. Otherwise, give it a miss.
The Onion Movie (2008)
A hit and miss movie
I've always loved The Onion website, and just recently they started the Onion News Network TV show. I love the show, and was looking forward to this movie, but it's such a disappointment. The idea behind the film is that it's like an extended news broadcast with reporters on the scene of a recent disaster, an interview with a Britney Spears-type character and an anchorman linking these, and more, together. In addition, there's a recurring advert for a Steven Seagal movie that pops up in various sketches. Bizarrely, there are also sketches where it's like a serious discussion of a film, but it's this film they're discussing. And they're not funny.
I laughed once during the film and smiled a few times, but most often I was just waiting for one sketch to end and then next one to begin. There's very little of the type of humour I've come to expect from the website or the new TV show. It's like they tried to make it appeal to a larger audience, and in doing so they've stripped it of the often caustic humour that is so appealing. There are moments when it does shine through, but most often it's like a bland, regular TV sketch show, extended to 80 minutes.
If you're a fan of The Onion, I would honestly tell you to avoid this movie. You will only be disappointed.
Who's That Girl (1987)
Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide, from the look of love
"What's his name?" "Loudon." "Loudon what?" "Clear."
That gag still gets me, TWENTY ONE years after the film was released.
I loved the film back then and I love it today. I must have watched this a hundred times back in the day, and when I bought the DVD recently I could still remember some of the dialogue.
Madonna plays Nikki Finn, a young woman jailed for a crime she didn't commit. When she gets out she decides to seek revenge.
Griffin Dunne (whatever happened to him?), plays an attorney for his fiancée's father (John McMartin). The future father-in-law asks Loudon to take Nikki from prison to the bus station and to make sure she gets on the bus, as part of a supposed new public relations programme. A seemingly easy task, but there are complications aplenty, some funny dialogue, and some admittedly stupid-but-funny scenes along the way.
Madonna has a stupid voice in this film, which until I was able to watch with subtitles made one or two lines of dialogue incomprehensible for me (hence only 8/10), but on the other hand I can't imagine her doing it in her normal voice.
This film shows Madonna's comic side (too lacking these days, perhaps), and she genuinely is funny in the role. Dunne makes a great foil, while Haviland Morris is perfect as the uppity fiancée.
Yes, it's predictable, yes, the jokes could be better, but I think this is a great film and will happily sit down and watch it 100 times more.
Shanghai Surprise (1986)
Not that bad!
I'm glad to see that I'm not the only person who thinks this film isn't a complete waste of time.
I first rented the movie waaaaay back when it first came out on video and actually quite liked it. Then when it became available to buy, I hot footed it down to HMV to get my own copy, and I wasn't disappointed.
Let's start off with Madonna. First of all, she looks gorgeous in this. And you know what, her acting isn't that bad. Yes, you read me right, she's not bad. What lets her down, however, is the clunky dialogue. Not even Meryl Streep could do much with this. But she's more than competent with what she has to work with.
As for the story, well, it was never going to be a contender for film of the year, but it's straight forward enough and even has a little twist at the end (and no, I didn't see it coming). Madonna is a missionary out in Shanghai, trying to procure opium while Sean Penn is a... not sure exactly what he is, but he ends up helping Madonna against the baddies. Yes, it's full of clichés, but it's upbeat and doesn't take itself too seriously.
I realise that the film won't be to everyone's tastes, but it's honestly not that bad.
War of the Worlds (2005)
Cliché ridden nonsense
I'll start off the way I mean to go on: I *HATED* this film. The ending couldn't come too soon for me and I can honestly say the only thing I liked about this film was Tom Cruise's jacket. We're supposed to believe that hidden underneath the surface of THE ENTIRE PLANET there were hulking great big metallic tripods just waiting to conquer the earth. Would we have not noticed these things before while excavating cities to build subways and tunnels? Would they not have been picked up by science and technology as we strive to learn more about our planet? Apparently not. Believable over 100 years ago when the story was written, not now.
Another problem with changing around the time period is that the storms supposedly knock out EVERYTHING electrical - even analogue watches. So how is it possible that pictures of invading tripods were transmitted to a TV news van? And how was it possible that they were able to pick them up? And why does the van work? And why does Tom Cruise's car work? And the radio in the car? And do all cars run for 24 hours without needing to be filled up? And why didn't the storm knock out the ferry? Then there's the problem of the characters. Naturally, being a Spielberg film, it involves a dysfunctional family. After the parents divorce, naturally the little screeching girl and the sullen teen boy have "issues". Don't remember them cropping up in the HG Wells version, but that could just be my memory playing tricks with me. Dakota Fanning as the daughter is excellent at portraying a screaming brat who needs to be told to SHUT UP on more than one occasion. She alone is perhaps the reason why I disliked this film so much. I would gladly have sent her to her "safe place" and abandoned her there.
The despondent son never uses the word "dad" until one of those cloying moments when it's necessary to show that he has changed. And why does the son who has no opinion on anything, and who doesn't care about anything, SUDDENLY decide that he simply MUST fight for his country? When did he grow a conscience? And will he turn up safe and sound at the end? Oh, if only it wasn't a Spielberg film then perhaps we might actually bother to guess.
Like the most recent Star Wars film, the special effects are decidedly unspectacular. It's not that there's anything wrong with them as such, but a train with flaming carriages was frankly the only stand-out moment (and I've seen better on TV). The 'evil' tripods were obviously designed with a 1950s pen in hand and the operators seem to be design rejects from Men in Black (a cross between a gremlin and a penis head) wholly unconvincing as a sign of menace. And that is the greatest problem with the film, there's no sense of danger just a feeling of irritation with the characters. There's no sense of foreboding when the first tripods appear, just the question "what are they going to blow up?" There's no drama when Tom Cruise decides to reunite his kids with their mother and grandparents, just the feeling that it's a pointless exercise given that THE WHOLE PLANET is under attack. When Tim Robbins appears, it's not a feeling of disquiet that he brings to the screen, only a few more kilos.
After watching our planet for a million years, why did the aliens decide to invade NOW when the world is in such a bad state and when we finally do have the artillery to retaliate. Would they not, having noticed we had started to build powerful weapons, decide to attack then, before we got too powerful? And having observed us for a million years (apparently) would they not have learned even a little about the way we have evolved, how we react to different things, what makes us ill etc. And why do they kill us when it's our blood that they need?
Ripley's Game (2002)
The Talentless Mr Ripley
Having read some of the other comments here, I'm wondering if people saw the same film that I did - because this one is an absolute stinker. The things that made the Talented Mr Ripley (TMR) (1999) so good - acting, location, music, and of course story - have all been abandoned.
To start with the acting, John Malkovich gives a flat performance, with monotonous delivery of (it must be said) bad dialogue. There's no menace in what he's saying - he could almost be reading out a shopping list. There's a scene where he's correcting Reeves for mispronunciation - yet the "corrections" are the American mispronunciations. In TMR, Ripley is an explicitly gay character, unlike in the book - here Malkovich gives a camp performance of a seemingly hetero character.
Dougray Scott fares no better - and what horrible teeth! He tries to nail down a plummy English accent, but for the most part is pretty wide of the mark, coming across as half-Perthshire/half-drama school. And for someone with cancer who is hoping for a miracle cure, why does he smoke so much?
The connection with Reeves (Ray Winstone) and Ripley is never made clear - how did they meet, why are they still acquainted etc. Reeves comes across as a would-be gangster from a cheap Sunday evening drama on a low-budget satellite channel, wholly unconvincing, and spouting dialogue straight from the "How to be a cockney gangster" handbook.
Chiara Caselli as Ripley's love interest is just awful. Her accent wavers between London and Rome, as does her acting ability. Surely employed because she was cheaper than a British/American actress who could do a reasonable attempt at an Italian accent.
As for the locations, like TMR, this takes place in Italy, but where in TMR we had azure skies, panoramic vistas beautifully framed by John Seale, olde worlde streets and beautiful Italian extras, here we have Italian countryside (although who can tell Italian countryside from anywhere else's?), leaden skies, wet streets and Germans. I won't bother comparing the clothes - John Malkovich in a beret, need I say more?!
Gabriel Jared's beautiful score complimented TMR perfectly, delicately highlighting emotion and view. Here we have - apparently, although I refuse to believe it - Ennio Morricone jarring the senses with a repetitive, dull, and frankly non-melodic piece played on, of all things, a harpsichord. There's a reason you don't hear harpsichords in musical scores very often - they sound awful.
And finally the story. Ripley almost plays second fiddle to Reeves in the story, as it seems to be Reeves who does most of the arranging of the murders (some minor plot detail of getting one Balkan country's mafia to start fighting another ex-Soviet mafia leaving Ripley to take over... what?)
It's Dougray Scott's character who is then contracted to do the assassinations, until finally it's all brought back to Ripley's door, by which time you don't care who gets killed.
This is a singularly bad film. The director has no vision or flair for film-making whatsoever, and this is surely a low-point in the careers of all actors concerned. Ennio Morricone should go hang his head in shame for allowing his name to be attached to this project.
Avoid at all costs.