Change Your Image
AvonKerr
Reviews
Station Eleven (2021)
Skip the even numbered episodes.
The show alternates between two timelines. One is OK, not great but OK. The other is trash. Smelly month-old trash. Mostly nappies, raw fish and cat litter trash.
The parts set in the time of the outbreak are decent little stories played out by a variety of mostly interesting characters in very different circumstances. The each view the apocalypse from a different angle and stay tightly focussed on small groups of people and how they get through it. Although this isn't a particularly new or inventive concept it's done well enough to justify it's existence and could have made an effective show on it's own.
The parts set in the future are painfully dull. The lead character is a total charisma vacuum and all the people around her are the sort of people that make you wish for the end of the world just to be rid of them.
The future story goes nowhere and offers nothing. The embedded narrative from which the show takes it's name is a mess that is never justified and just gets in the way without providing any value at all.
There is no-one and nothing to root for in this show at all except the virus. You're just left wondering "if this is all that's left of humanity please please please let it finish it's job".
Foundation (2021)
Sickeningly awful
It has been clear from the trailers and interviews with creators that they had no intention of honouring the books. It was doubtful any of them even bothered to read them.
I knew it was going to be an agonising experience for a fan of the originals to watch this but I had hoped that it might at least be able to create something new from the same core ideas. As such and given the dearth of watchable sci-fi in recent years I was willing to give it a shot.
While rare this is possible, after all the Star Wars trilogy isn't the Lensman Series but it became it's own thing and was able to stand tall on it's own merits. This however is the exact opposite of that success, it isn't even a bad copy. It's just pure, unadulterated garbage with some names and places stolen from a vastly superior work and stuck in where they don't fit.
It lacks for any merits or originality of it's own and every time it mentions a name, place, concept or idea from the books it gets it so completely wrong you can't help screaming at the screen. Even the basic timeline is jumbled beyond recognition and it manages to screw up key plot points right from the first line of dialogue.
The characters are all flat. Those based on major characters from the books are unrecognisable This is most notable with Salvor Hardin who has somehow gone from a highly respected, pacifist Mayor to some kind of armed vagrant wandering the wastes. He's also now tied to the ridiculous macguffin that the writers have clearly added for no reason other than to Deus Ex Machina themselves out of whatever incompetent mess they make of the story.
The script is cheesy and lacking in any gravitas. This is most obvious and painful when a line from the books is dropped in verbatim. It is so jarring the few times it happens because it serves to highlight how weak and dull they've made Asimov's brilliant and memorable characters.
The "new" ideas (terrorists, cloning, etc.) don't fit the themes of the original and in many cases fundamentally destroy critical aspects of the story. For example two of the main signs of the First Empire's collapse are the shortening of lengths of imperial dynasties and their lack of control over the fringes of their empire. In this mess the emperor is now effectively immortal and is inexplicable dealing with minor squabbles on the periphery.
There is so much more that could be complained about with this but it's wasted enough of my time. I won't be watching any new episodes and advise anyone that hasn't tried to it yet to do something more enjoyable with their time - like eating broken glass.
Ad Astra (2019)
How does a film this bad get made in 2019?
The science is so bad you actually can't help laugh at many points. Plot-specific gravity, no heed paid to mass/energy/momentum/inertia or any other basic principles at any time at all whatsoever. Hilariously idiotic premises abound throughout from fundamental errors about how orbits work and just getting worse from there till it culminates in the kind of space-based explosion you'd expect from a 1950s adventure serial.
What passes for a plot is a series of completely nonsensical random things-that-happen. None of them have any reason to happen and the people doing them have no motivations or objectives. It's just "stupid thing happens for no reason" followed by "stupid thing happens for no reason".
Everyone in the film seems to take psychological evaluations every 10 minutes for no reason at all and yet every single one of them is suicidally depressed and this is never picked up on.
Brad Pitt's entire performance is dull, flat and annoying. Much like the entire film.
Even the style and cinematography are terrible.
We can build a colony on Mars with some kind of convenient augmented gravity but installing functioning lights or putting up wallpaper straight is beyond us???? (also... seriously? we took wallpaper and a load of low-grade timber to mars to build a base there???).
Utter dreck!
Skyline (2010)
Jeff Goldblum paid them to make this so he'd look better right?
I have to assume the name is a nod to the car.... loud, crass and occupied by soul-less cretins you wish would just die.
The film falls into three fairly distinct sections : 1) The boring first 20 minutes where you meet the characters. Between the six of them they don't have one redeeming feature or interesting personality trait so this all seems doubly pointless. 2) The OK middle 40 minutes or so where we see the aliens in action. This part could be cut out to make a half-way viable episode of a science-fiction anthology on TV if they added some plot and maybe explained why the aliens are so interested in this one tower block while almost totally ignoring the rest of the city after their initial attack. 3) The cringe-worthy last 30 minutes. By this point even the goldfish in the audience were bored half to sleep of watching the cast run around the same two sets, escaping the same two monsters in slow-motion. When the male lead started attacking an alien with a brick, in slow-mo, with a spinning camera and smoke machines I started to wonder if it was actually meant to be a comedy. Then the kiss.... and the least said about the last few minutes the better.
Here's hoping that the other alien invasion films coming soon are a lot better than this dreck because what I saw tonight made ID4 look like Citizen Kane.
Also, if you're hoping it will at least be worth seeing for the special effects then don't bother. The visuals are OK but nothing new or special by today's standards. What merit they do have is often lost beneath musical cues that are so bland or misplaced you feel no immersion at all whatsoever.
I give it a 2/10 very grudgingly. One point for resisting at least one retarded cliché by admitting the aliens would win easily and one point for not being Cloverfield.
Star Trek (2009)
Rubbish
The story is a pathetic amalgam of the "big thing appears near earth" story that has been used in at least three previous Treks, a bunch of scenes from the various TV series done worse and a load of filler that I think was shot by Michael Bay but he didn't want it because it was too stupid.
The actors who play the adult Kirk and Spock are both good if you ignore the story and script they have to work with. Both look the parts and carry them surprisingly well. The less said about their kid versions the better, but let's just say young Anakin looks a lot better in this light.
The rest of the cast are either horribly mis-cast (Simon Pegg), instantly forgettable or just plain horrible (Uhura).
By and large the action/sfx scenes reminded me mostly of the end of Armageddon - shiny drivel that makes you want to punch people in the neck. The first ten minutes epitomises this (slight spoiler but you won't miss anything, the film has no surprises in it) : teeny tiny research ship vs huge planet-killing machine from a vastly more advanced race AND 150 years in the future, the smaller ship is so boned by the first 5 seconds of the fight, during which the baddies don't even really try, that it's evacuated. It is then flown in a dead straight line at the enemy guns for about 90 seconds with no shields, no defences and no evasive manoeuvres. Despite this it is somehow unharmed and it's pilot manages to happily converse with his wife by radio while presumably the conversation aboard the enemy ship goes something like "I think he's going to ram us sir", "oh?", "shall we do something?", "shoot wildly over his head", "yes sir"..... time passes.... "he's still coming sir, very very slowly", "oh well shoot more just don't hit him that would spoil the moment". I'm sure Futurama had almost this exact scene but it was a joke when they did it.....
It's this kind of lazy, tired, pathetic trash that I expected from Abrams and he delivers it in spades. The whole film is saturated with laziness from top to bottom. Given that the Trek franchise invented and then flogged to death most of the great clichés of sci-fi you might think this is all just tongue-in-cheek homage but it really isn't, this is the best this hackneyed joke of a director has to offer and you can tell he honestly thinks it doesn't stink. The pinnacle of this laziness has to be "Red matter" which is probably the worst McGuffin in the history of cinema. Oh yes and let's not forget that the entire plot hinges on the premise that Spock (something of an icon for learning) has never heard of "velocity equals distance over time".
All of this is from a purely non-Trek perspective. I could point out no end of issues on that front (Cardassians in Kirk's era, Ships built on the surface of the planet, everything about Pike, one of the most advanced species in the galaxy defeated by a ship whose main weapon is a 10 mile long undefended phallus which takes a week to shoot it's load, etc. etc. etc.).
Cloverfield (2008)
Unspeakably bad
If only I'd known that J J Abrams was involved I wouldn't have gone within a mile of this utter stinker. Unfortunately I deliberately avoided seeing or reading anything about it before going in the hope that any surprises wouldn't be spoilt. Sadly the only surprise was that I made it to the end. The appallingly bad fake-camcorder style is annoying after about two minutes and by the end of the "film" it is migraine-inducing.
The only character of any interest says almost nothing meanwhile his idiot friend won't shut up yet says nothing of value or interest at any time.
There is no story at all worth mentioning, if you've seen the trailer then you've seen everything that happens in the film already. Actually you've seen a better cut of it, the trailer looked cheesy, formulaic and predictable (which really should have warned me Abrams could be involved) but at least it was over quickly and had some small promise that the full movie might be interesting.
If you like monster movies: avoid this, the monster is on a par with a cutscene in video-game at best. If you like action movies: avoid this, watch the invasion scenes from ID4 again on cable. They are a million times better If you like sci-fi movies: avoid this, there's nothing here for you at all If you like mysteries: avoid this, there is no mystery, except how they were allowed to put this garbage on general release In fact if you like movies at all: avoid this.
Dawn of the Dead (2004)
Why?
In brief : It would have been an average zombie movie if it hadn't tried to connect itself to Romero. By doing that though it set it's standards miles too high and never came anywhere near them. If it had a different name and had dropped 2 or 3 stolen lines it would have been a 4 or maybe a 5/10. By reminding the viewer of better films though it rates at best a 3.
Direction : Lazy best describes it. Zombie movies are not a genre big on story so to make a good one you need to make the world and it's characters really come alive. Snyder does OK with some of the characters but fails to do anything with most. Too many things happen without reason or purpose and he could have done with a few less survivors inside the mall.
Cinematography/Editing - Amateurish and very annoying. Most scenes fell into two categories - "ooh look at my new camera's zoom lens" or "I liked this shot in [other movie] I'll just steal that". The two worst examples of the latter are the American Beauty "look closer" teaser shot used at the beginning and the 28 Days Later stutter shots used at the end. The AB one just ruined any attempt to build tension and the 28 Days Later rip-off totally missed the point. In that film it was used for scenes featuring the "infected" to differentiate their chaotic nature from that of the normal people. In this film it was just stuck over the last ten minutes because someone thought "me likee, me steal". Without context it was just annoying and cheap.
Acting/Characters - The primaries were generally good and one or two were very good. Unfortunately there were a few that just got ignored and even the best ones were tainted at some point. For example - Ana and Michael - what on Earth was that about? I'll tell you what - some suit demanded a romance regardless of context or reason. Another example, the guards - they started out great and could have added a lot more substance to the film but instead everyone had to get along and "bond". Again I assume someone didn't like the idea of a film containing any kind of social commentary or depth. The gun-shop guy was a really nice idea, I wish they had used him a lot more and only had one or two people arrive in the truck. The couple with the baby are the best thing in the film, hands down. In fact they are the only thing that is in any small way worthy of the films claimed heritage.
Gore/SFX - Not enough of it basically and nothing new or interesting.
Plot - As I said above zombie movies aren't big here but this one had none, zero, zip. nada, not a bean. Nothing drove it on at all and consecutive scenes rarely connected at all after the first half hour. There is no sense of time passing in the film at all, they could have been there a week or a year but there's no way at all to tell. The passage of time and it's effect on the cast is central to the original but totally missing here.
CHUDs - Adequate for the task but nothing special. Their behaviour and abilities are rather inconsistent but not so much as to be a major annoyance. The makeup required is now run-off-the-mill so it's hard to say much but that it was up to the job. I didn't like the way they ran - running is not so bad on it's own but they were just too co-ordinated by far. If they had stumbled more or something they would have looked a lot better. Biggest complaint I had here though was that there was nowhere near enough moaning and groaning.
The Romero connection - I have no idea why they bothered. With the title changed and a few lines removed the only link would have been the mall and they could have just about got away with that. When compared to the original this film loses in every single way, including those where technological advances could have made it better. Almost all the things that mark the original out as a masterpiece are completely absent here and nothing is added to replace them.
Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (2004)
108 minutes of wishing the whole cast would just die.
Basically the movie revolves around a group of hateful and worthless people who move sluggishly through a painfully predictable and boring sequence of set pieces.
None of these experiences are funny or even interesting. Most are excruciatingly painful because of the utter lack of depth in any of the characters. The dreadful script doesn't help.
I quite liked the first film - it wasn't great but it had a bit of charm and a realism uncommon in big budget productions. This doesn't, it's just horrible.
Any film where Hugh Grant is the best thing in it is a stinker and in this one he's the closest thing to anything bearable.
I can't vote 0 on this site or I would. Avoid at all costs.
Troy (2004)
Pretty good but not amazing
First my two real gripes with this film :
The music was really really bad, it sounded like it was put together by a child cut-&-pasting the parts not used in Braveheart, Gladiator and LoTR.
Brad Pitt's performance was fine in most regards (his fights were at best average but that may be editing or choreography to blame) but he was not a good choice for the role. He's just too much of a pretty-boy to pass for a hardened warrior no matter how many weights he lifts. If they had retained his original relationship to Patroclus it may have worked better but as it was he was jarringly inappropriate.
Now the good things :
The script and story, while not very similar to the Iliad, do bear a passing resemblance and are well put together. The film maintains a good balance of story and action throughout and is well paced for such a long film. The writers did a very good job of replacing the parts of the Iliad which would simply not have worked with a modern audience with more modern plot devices and twists.
The acting is of a generally high standard throughout and the characters manage to remain memorable and distinctive, even those that have relatively minor and dry roles which is a credit to the casting (makes me wonder how Pitt got selected).
The battle scenes are good if not amazing. They aren't in the same league as the LoTR trilogy but that's hardly surprising.
The Editing and Direction are polished and smooth if rather formulaic and predictable. It seems that this is how all Petersen's movies will be now but even the most mindless entertainment has it's value when done well.
Generally a good film and definitely worth seeing on the big screen.
6/10 (would have been 7/10 if Brian Blessed had played Agamemnon)
Van Helsing (2004)
Worse than bloody awful
I never thought I'd find a film to challenge Waterworld's seemingly unbeatable levels of drivel and inconsistency. If anyone was going to have a chance at that "honour" though I would have bet on Sommers and indeed he has plumbed new depths here.
There is really nothing good to say about this travesty at all. Who keeps green-lighting this ass-clowns films? The rest of Holywood must be ecstatic right now knowing they can't possible make the worst film of the year no matter how hard they try.
I hope Beckinsale and Jackman were well paid as this will do nothing but harm to both of them. Everyone else attached to this fiasco can probably rely on people's minds erasing their memories of it in self-preservation.
One Hour Photo (2002)
Ultimately dissapointing
Nothing new here unfortunately. The Hidden Suburban Terror genre has been flogged to death lately and although this film has it's moments it is lacking in too many ways. The direction and cinematography are far, far, far too repetitive to have any real impact on the viewer after the first 5 minutes. The music is intrusive and often annoying. The total lack of a story would be forgivable if the film had some mood or suspense to it but it doesn't. You know 99% of the story after only 2 short scenes and it's not worth the wait for the last 1%. A shame as Williams was pretty good and the content could have been done better in more skilled hands.
Black Hawk Down (2001)
Stunning
A fantastic movie that avoids all the cliches of the 'highly organised elite fighting force' story and instead in unashamed to show the audience why every soldier in the world is terrified of having the Americans on their side in a war. Scott shows in a shockingly real manner the consequences of decades of retarded jingoistic foreign policy and of a military with no idea of how to fight (and often of who they are fighting). The only thing I would question is the competence of the squaddies in the film seems far too high and totally at odds with all evidence and experience of the US Army.
It's also highly appropriate that it was rushed forward to a release date during America's latest unjustified war of oppression. More so considering that their excuse this time was an act of desperation by the dispossessed survivors of so many of their earlier indiscretions and criminal activities.
Planet of the Apes (2001)
Utter Sh*te
Why was this made? The original was better in EVERY way, including the special effects. Everyone involved in this abomination of a movie should issue an apology to the world for their crimes and all copies of the film itself should be burnt and the ashes ground down and launched into space to ensure that no-one else ever has to sit through this drivel again.
Shriek If You Know What I Did Last Friday the Thirteenth (2000)
Not that bad actually
Having only just barely managed to sit through several of the movies this parodies (Final Destination, Cherry Falls, etc.) I would say that most of the time it is does a pretty good job of poking fun at them. While it is very hit-and-miss in places it was a lot better than I expected and many, many times funnier than Scary Movie. Most of the jokes are one liners and while some fall flat enough of them are funny that you end up laughing quite a lot.
The Wonderful World of Disney: Princess of Thieves (2001)
Utter Drivel
Laughable historically inaccuracies, poor script, laughable acting and hilarious story make this movie barely worth 2/10. In particular I would love to know how ~40 peasants with pointy sticks and a goat managed to defeat the king's army without casualties. Also how did they get from Nottingham to London with no horses so quickly (did they all ride on the same goat). I suspect the notorious prisons of the Tower Of London weren't actually made of cardboard and you couldn't really escape by getting a good run-up at the doors. Etc. Etc. Etc. Malcolm McDowell has made many poor movies in the past and this is no exception.
Plunkett & Macleane (1999)
Utterly terrible
Seeing this film was one of the worst decisions of my life. I was persuaded to see by a friend who's main reason for going was to see Johnny Lee Miller which should have been warning enough of what to expect.
I knew little about the film before I saw it but was expecting at least a good performance from the leading actors and at worst an acceptable action film. It was neither. The plot was dull, the performances were uninspired and flat and even Robert Carlyle couldn't save the script.
Basically the film is about two highwaymen, who steal stuff and try not to get caught. I'd like to be able to say there was more to it but there wasn't. There is the obligatory love interest (Liv Tyler) but her part seems to have been crow-barred in at the last minute with no consideration as to where or how it integrates into the film as a whole.
The 1000 word limit on reviews prevents me from listing the grotesque historical inaccuracies of the film but I will mention that it revived the old Hollywood beliefs that flint-locks and muskets were accurate at any distance, had automatic mechanisms and reloaded in seconds not minutes. This was certainly not the only daft idea in the film but it was one of the most annoying.
In it's favour I would say that the sets were well made, if often inappropriate, and that the production quality was above average.
This however did not change the fact that the film as a whole was dire, as demonstrated by the outbreaks of laughter in the theatre during some of the supposedly serious scenes.
In short my advice to anyone who is thinking about seeing this film is don't, go and see Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.