Change Your Image
jmb3222
Reviews
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
If your're a kid it's brilliant, if you're past puberty........
I didn't expect much, given the target audience, but they really should have told George Lucas "give us a synopsis, we'll get script writer to do the job" To say the dialogue is wooden is an insult to trees! The problem is the special effects. Yes they are good but you still require a story for heaven's sake! That's why the originals are better - the limited effects available means they have to have a good story and half decent dialogue. All we've had with Episodes I,II and III is an exercise in how many CGI effects can we get in around a clichéd script! There's also a major continuity/script glitch - when Yoda and Obi-Wan are looking at the security footage of Annakin they refer to the Emperor having commanded him - but they go to the Jedi temple when the senate is meeting - they (Yoda and Obi-Wan) can't know Palpatine has made himself emperor! This is underlined when Obi-Wan then goes to see Padmee and refers to Palpatine as the Chancellor! Even my 8 year old spotted that! But I didn't fall asleep and my kids - aged 7,8 and 12 were glued to the screen so as a film for that age group 10/10 otherwise 3/10
Reds (1981)
This is a film treat it as such....
This is an interesting film, all the more so because it is meant to tell a true story (insofar as any film of real events is true!)
I suppose you'll either like it or loathe it. If you like it, good; it isn't a bad film, but a bit of an idea of European history will help you.
If you you fall into the latter category loathe it because you think it's a bad film not because of the stupid bigotry shown in some of the other reviews here which seem to be so hung up on the USA and Mom and apple pie that they see "Commies" in even thinking about the event of the early 20th century!
After seeing it it made me interested enough to find out about John Reed. You might not like what he thought, you might not like Warren Beatty and what he thinks but for heaven's sake don't rubbish this film simply because it's about a political system you may not like, or have been indoctrinated not to like!
It's not brilliant but neither is it a "love poem to communism".
The Last Castle (2001)
Go and watch something else
I don't care whether you are a legal expert or not (Carl Abrams you mixed up the two principal characters Winter is the commandant and Irwin the prisoner!) but this film sucks - the whole premise not to mention the plot and storyline. If you must sit through this see, if like me, you can guess each plot twist as it occurs - it's not that hard to do with this film!
The characters (all of them) are your stereotypical Hollywood prison drama types, and not very good ones at that. Gandolfini, Reford and Delroy Lindo are fine actors what on earth posessed them (other than their agents) to be associated with this rubbish?
I guess this film came out post September 11 that's the only explanation for the cloying sentimentality of the final scenes.
Save yourself go and watch something else.
Lonesome Dove (1989)
Excellent, if only all TV was this good
As has been said this is one of the finest series made.
Much of that is due to the story and script, but equally important is that a good deal of the background is based on fact. Find out about Col. Charles Goodnight and Oliver Loving - how they set up their cattle drives from Texas to Colorado and Wyoming and what happened to them (expecially Loving and Wilson's fight with some Comanches) and you can see that the beauty of Lonesome Dove is knowing that the story is not just fiction but has a basis in historical fact, this just adds to the quality of this series.
Dungeons & Dragons (2000)
Go and do something more interesting instead!
This is garbage. If you have 100 minutes to spare you must have something more interesting to do than to watch this rubbish!
I can't really comment on the dialogue since most of it is obscured by the overbearing soundtrack - you sit there having to tweak the volume to try and hear anything and get blasted by the music.
Bodyline (1984)
Good, but not quite what happened! (POSSIBLE SPOILERS)
Yes I'm a Pom. This is a good period drama about the 1932-33 Ashes series where England did their homework to deal with Saint Don Bradman. I'm sure if England had a player of Bradman's stature Audtralia would have come up with similar tactics to deal with him!
Where this series does fail is in the hype over so-called bodyline bowling. The political scandal is depicted accurately, but as I understand it the only times when Australian batsmen were hit by the ball England were not at that moment using "bodyline" tactics. But other than that gripe this is worth seeing - if you like cricket that is!
Holocaust (1978)
Watch it, and think how could this have happened?
Hindsight's wonderful, and it easy now to criticise this series. I saw it first in Germany and the effect it had there was quite profound. It caused a national debate and, it could be argued, helped Germany face up to what occurred between 1933 and 1945, not so much from the extermination camps, but that they, a civilised people, could be led along that path.
Coyote Ugly (2000)
Garbage, watch something else, anything....
I was persuaded to watch this.
Afterwards I thought why on earth do people rave about this film. A load of formulaic one dimensional drivel.
Don't bother wasting your time! Watch something else, anything, just save your time and leave this rubbish on the shelf!
The Singing Detective (1986)
I think it's excellent, but you make up your own mind!
The message behind a lot of Potter's work is as the summary says; about people thinking for temselves and not blindly following the crowd.
I have a problem with Potter's works. Some of it is excellent. However critics, and the BBC in particular, acted as if he was some form of dramatic messiah. His best work "The Singing Detective", "Pennies From Heaven" etc. was excellent, however he also wrote a great deal of complete rubbish which found it's way on the screen simply because it had Dennis Potter's name on it. Look at some of the plots, try and forget Dennis Potter, and you have to ask why did they make this rubbish!
Kessler (1981)
Excellent
I remember watching this when it was first shown on the BBC. It takes the story on, post-war, of what becomes of Gestapo chief Kessler. Hopefully UK Drama will show this - as they are now showing Secret Army.
All the superlatives about Secret Army apply equally to this. It may be a cliche, but drama like this makes the BBC license fee worthwhile!
A Beautiful Mind (2001)
not Oscar material
What is this film actually about - the story of John Nash or a study of schizophrenia? In the end it winds up being neither.
Why when they "fictionalize" some things do they have to mess around with the timeline. As if for some reason moving events back 5 years makes any difference to the story!
Yes Nash did win a Nobel Prize in 1994, for Economic Sciences not mathematics - and it was shared with John Harsanyi and Reinhard Selten but the film omits this.
Battle of Britain (1969)
A good film, unfortunately for Hollywood, WW2 started in 1939!
This film does have its flaws, but is still a great film. It had to be made when it did (sic) if only because the Spanish Air Force still had their Merlin engined Hispano HA-1109 and HA-1112 "Me 109s" and Casa C.2111 "111s" flying in 1968!
It's good that some "stars" do not have big roles. Michael Caine whilst being "hot box office" is shot down - many pilots who seemed invincible were lost. A number of the parts are based on real characters Robert Shaw's is based on Adolf 'Sailor' Malan - 74 Squadron Ace, Susannah York's Harvey is based on one Felicity Hanbury (who later became the Commandant of the WRAF). The scene where she has to deal with a bombed slit trench is based on what happened when Biggin Hill was attacked. Being burned and still being alive was one of the biggest risks - sitting next to a tank of 100 octane whislt being shot at was risky.
It's chief flaws are i) Hurricanes shot down the bulk of the German losses during the Battle - this "error" is primarily because there were more flying Spitfires available. More serious is depicting "The Few" as a group of equals - in reality the class system was still to the fore in some places more so than others. Officer would not mix with NCOs, Auxilliary Air Force pilots (predominantly from the upper classes) looked down on Volunteer Reserve pilots (predominantly from the working/middle classes). But bear in mind this was made less than 30 years after the event when some of the myths and propaganda surrounding it were still treated as the truth, unlike "Pearl Harbor" and "U-571" and other recent films they haven't just thrown historical fact out because it doesn't fit the desired story line!
Many pilots were killed simply because of the stupid tatics they used - fighting by the 1930s RAF rule book until lessons were learnt. Many didn't see what hit them. In most other ways the film is by and large correct. The British were very reluctant to use Polish and Czech squadrons; despite many of these pilots being much more experienced than British.
Oh and having read the other comments here - this does not follow just one squadron, Robert Shaw is one, Michael Caine another, The Czech/Poles others, Christopher Plummer another. I seem to remember that the film makers went out of their way not to show any one squadron as being the "winners" hence no squadron numbers are mentioned - all aircraft codes are ficticious.
A film has to keep an audience's attention for 100+ minutes real life isn't like that just showing the fear and boredom of sitting around on hot summers days dreading the 'phone call would not make a good movie instead compromises are made. When you watch it remember that this wasn't just dreamt up by some scriptwriter this really happened.