sc_taylor's Reviews

Making a Monster (2020)

1/10

31 March 2023

This really is trash tv at its worst. Melodramatic, prurient and sensationalist with the usual rent-an-expert contributors trotting out their fatuous remarks and pseudo-scientific opinions to make the whole thing look authoritative. Aside from the forensic findings at the various gravesites very little is known with any certainty about the true circumstances of these killings. Although his police interviews were very lengthy and extensive, Fred West was a boaster, fantasist and liar who produced several entirely contradictory accounts of what happened. None of them can be relied on with any degree of confidence. Yet this has not prevented endless cheaply produced 'documentaries' from filling in the gaps and speculating wildly for entertainment purposes.

Documentaries should present facts (not conjectures) in a neutral manner, not dress them up with cheap video effects more suitable to a second rate horror movie. Utter drivel.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Fred and Rose West: Reopened (2021– )

1/10

Utter rubbish, low budget, pesudo-investigation

26 February 2023

ITV should be ashamed. This so-called 'investigation' (which is actually just an attempt to fill some scheduling time) is filmed in a darkened warehouse complete with shadows and shafts of light to make it all look sinister and a second rate 'psychologist' makes completely assinine comments with McDonald theatrically saying 'oh no!' and burying his head in his hands from time to time. The supposition that there may be additional victims is based purely on Fred West's own words to his appropriate adult - yet at no point is it made clear that West was an incredibly unreliable witness. He was a compulsive liar, boaster and fantasist. So there is no new evidence here at all! I'm astonished Trevor McDonald put his name to this twaddle! A complete waste of everyone's time.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014)

1/10

One of the worst films I have seen for several decades

21 March 2015

It's appalling on every level.

Two dimensional characters, shocking acting, an utterly fake working class character cynically shoe-horned in to broaden the audience demographic. An absurd lisp, a pure cliché "English Gentleman" out of central casting and yet another phoned-in performance from the reliably awful Michael 'can-I- have-my-cheque-now-please' Caine. Even the violence is tedious.

It's a mark of something truly dreadful when even Mark Strong looks poor.

Two hours of pure torture.

37 out of 72 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

A Field in England (2013)

Tedious, pseudo-profound twaddle

9 July 2013

Mr Wheatley's work seems to embody the concept of the Emperor's New Clothes. Each new offering seems to cause a ripple of delight amongst critics, yet the experience of actually watching his films is reliably disappointing. Admittedly, "Sightseers" had a certain darkly comic appeal, but "Kill List" was dreadful and this latest offering manages to be less interesting still. Historically implausible accents and dialogue aside, we are expected to swallow a series of random plot elements (presumably on the excuse that things need not make sense on mushrooms). Sorry, but that isn't good enough. Narrative may not be fashionable, but it does at least serve the purpose of keeping the audience interested. It is, however, very difficult to maintain any interest beyond about 40 minutes at which point it becomes clear the film is based on the law of diminishing returns. Back and white cinematography? Why is that, I wonder? Could it be to make things more realistic because they hadn't invented colour film in the 17th century? Please!

16 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Road (I) (2009)

3/10

What a disappointment!

19 January 2010

Warning: Spoilers

Just went to see "The Road" (I had been really looking forward to it as I am a fan of Mr Mortensen).

What a disappointment! From the first minutes I thought to myself 'with all this bleakness it's going to be jolly hard to keep the interest going'. Well, quite! I was bored after half an hour. I found that try as I might, I just couldn't seem to care for either of them, or what happened to them. But the worst of it is that it has more holes than a colander! Indulge me while I list but a few;

How on earth does the boy manage to look so healthy and perfect when all they have to live on is a couple of locusts a week? His skin would be sallow, his teeth would be brown, his hair lank etc etc.

How come the height marks on the door in Viggo's childhood home are still there 40 years later? Has no one ever decorated the place since?

How do they manage to find a bomb shelter, unlocked and barely concealed which just happens to be stock full of food and nice clean bedding when there have been gangs of violent men on the prowl for years taking every last crumb?

Why on Earth do they leave the aforementioned well stocked bomb shelter heading right out into the danger they believe they hear outside, instead of battening down the hatches and staying in the comfort and plentiful food? Absolutely crazy!

How on earth when they suddenly binge on all the goodies do they not vomit it straight back up? After all they are presumably suffering from moderate to severe starvation!

But how on Earth have they survived that long, on practically nothing? The boy was born when the apocalypse had already started and is about 8 or 9 years old!

When the boy catches an infection and gets a fever, how does he "just recover" from it? He would be badly malnourished and could well die of such an illness. At the very least he would be seriously ill for a long time.

The whole thing is just a series of badly thought through, lazy vignettes and set pieces on which to hang some semi-profound cloth-eared metaphysics and father-son bonding, survival through love, blah di blah.

And that ending is just cheese city! Not only is it absurdly 'convenient' that at the very moment his dad dies, the only decent people in the entire film suddenly turn up, as if by magic, to rescue him. But the final shot virtually has the bloody dog smiling! It's like some happy families, Kodak moment.

Deary me! I just couldn't wait for it to end!

92 out of 159 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Seven Pounds (2008)

1/10

Only "deep and profound" if you're American...

25 February 2009

...otherwise - and to anyone with an ounce of intelligence - the plot of this movie is blindingly obvious after the first ten minutes! How could anyone be taken in by this self-important rubbish? Still less puzzled? God help us! Hilariously, the distributors asked the press not to release the ending to the public. "ooohhh! it must be something really big and important!" Actually, movie reviewers, no need to release the ending, they'll figure it out easily enough anyway! Because it's perfectly transparent to anyone who isn't brain dead!!! It is a sad reflection on the Hollywood industry and its mindless domestic audience that crap like this gets taken seriously. "oh golly, what could all this strange, mysterious stuff mean? It's so confusing? Jelly fish, blind meat salesmen, IRS..? Gosh, it must be so deep and profound. I really can't understand what it could all add up to? What an incredibly clever puzzle it is..." Well...balls of string are puzzling if you're a kitten.

21 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (2006)

3/10

Overblown nonsense - A big disappointment

9 January 2007

Having read the book and loved it, I was really looking forward to seeing this movie.

The cinematography and the overall look of the film has been rightly praised. It is fantastic. The utter filth of ancient Paris is brought to life very vividly; you can almost taste it. But this is about all that is good.

My main problem with it is that it is so L O N G... The tale is a simple one and could be told easily in a normal 100 min timescale. The fact that it takes 140 minutes is a perfect illustration of what's wrong - it takes itself far too seriously! It thinks it is a very profound film, full of deep insights. It is not. It is merely a piece of Gothic-style entertainment and it should not pretend to be great art. It closes in on its subject matter with a feverish intensity that is practically fetishistic. It is massively overblown, with the lines (Alan Rickman's in particular) delivered in such an absurdly grandiose and laboured style as to be laughable.

The other principal problem is that the leading actor (Ben Whishaw) cannot act. His lines are appallingly wooden - his opening lines (where he whips up a version of the perfume, Amor and Psyche) are cringe-making! Throughout, he cannot inject any life whatsoever into the part. In fact, we are not invited to care about any of the characters. They are all completely two-dimensional.

7 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

A History of Violence (2005)

9/10

Outstanding!

4 October 2005

Cronenberg finally departs from his trademark "body-horror/sci-fi" genre. But not exactly into the mainstream.

Whilst this is one of his more straight forward and linear plots, it unfolds slowly and with an eerie sense of not quite knowing where you are being taken next. The performances are all excellent, with Mortensen almost underplaying his role - to stunning effect. Mario Bello is first class as the loving wife forced to confront the truth about a man she thought she knew.

The movie is shot in quite long takes and Cronenberg is not afraid of giving his actors quite long, almost uncomfortably long, pauses. It is a seemingly simple film, but its menace unfolds within you long after you finish watching it.

The final touch with the little girl welcoming her daddy home is magnificent.

5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Unspeakable (2002)

1/10

Unspeakably awful

10 May 2005

This movie is so utterly terrible I can barely bring myself to comment on it.

It is poorly written, ill conceived, badly acted! Agh. It is a poor imitation of silence of the lambs and even has the "beautiful" caring psychiatrist trying to understand the celebrity serial killer. Spare me such cinematic clichés! The killer is so utterly unconvincing. He looks like some cheesy 80s pop star and exudes nothing but blandness; where is the menace in this guy? And Dennis Hopper?! Wow! What were you thinking man?! Apocalypse Now! Easy Rider! Blue Velvet! Come on! I have seen many many films, but this must rate as the worst ever. If there had been a zero score possible on the voting scale, I would have awarded it. But I had to make do with a "1" - doesn't even come close to a "1"

11 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Swimming Pool (2003)

8/10

A fine piece of work

1 April 2005

I could not disagree more with the previous reviewer who said it is not worth watching based on the cover and that there are "only two nude scenes". I am not sure what he expected, but it is not supposed to be a porn movie! It is a thoughtful and well conceived film with two strongly drawn (and very well acted) characters. It is partly a mystery, but mainly it is a piece about redemption. The late middle-aged, somewhat stiff and conservative woman meets her muse in a younger, wilder girl.

It exudes sensuality from beginning to end and has a languid quality, largely due to the radiant and luxurious camera-work and the sunny South of France setting.

A "must-see", in my opinion.

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

28 Days Later (2002)

Truly dreadful!

19 November 2002

I went to this movie with high hopes, given that "trainspotting" is one of my favourite movies of all time. Also the subject matter sounded promising and I wanted to see London deserted.

However, after a good opening sequence in which the central character wanders around a devastated London discovering that almost everyone has been killed, the film degenerates into a farcical display of schlock horror and gratuitous violence with no centre, point or strong narrative direction. The "verite" camera work is shaky and imprecise meaning that half the time it is impossible to tell what is going on (not helped by very poor lighting). The acting too is pretty uninspired, especially the teenage girl who is quite terrible. She seems to have been poorly voice coached out of a Liverpool accent and consequently is too busy trying not to trip over her vowels to make any effort actually acting. I couldn't wait for it to end.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Pearl Harbor (2001)

1/10

Oh dear, oh dear

28 August 2002

What a truly dreadful turkey this is. Time and time again Hollywood serves up its predictably glossy version of dreadful events. Beautiful actors and actresses; history "dumbed down" for the barely literate so as not to get in the way of all those nice explosions. Utterly stereotyped, one dimensional characters; achingly, cringingly cheesy dialogue. The American Dream delivered on a plate with comic book "bad guys" thrown in for effect.

But all that money they spent on it! A proper director could have made ten times the movie on a hundredth of the budget. When will Hollywood realise that movie audiences are not complete idiots?

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Gattaca (1997)

What a gem!!

27 March 2001

I saw this film "by accident" having not previously heard of it.

Beautifully made. Stylish and original "noir" of the future. I love the tense, claustrophobic feel - as if everything is taking place in a vacuum. Uma Thurman is stunningly beautiful in this movie.

I am sure I cannot be the only person to notice that "Gattaca" is made out of the initial letters of the four bases in DNA. But I haven't seen this referred to anywhere. Couldn't be coincidence could it?

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Weird Science (1985)

1/10

The worst film ever made

5 January 2000

I am afraid that this is without any shadow of a doubt the very worst film I have ever seen.

It really is truly appalling and has no redeeming features whatsoever. I am certainly not averse to watching junk, indeed some films are enjoyable precisely because they are bad. But this was is quite unbelievable.

The acting is utterly abysmal - particularly Kelly LeBrock, who is totally talent-free. The storyline stinks to high heaven and is so politically incorrect it would make even the most severe male chauvinist blush. The dialogue is truly ghastly and made me cringe on many occasions. "Time Out" said that it was as though two adolescents had been let loose with a camera.

I dare say many will think I am taking it too seriously. Believe me I am not. It is obviously meant to be a joke - it's just that it fails dreadfully and does not seem too aware of the miserably obnoxious underlying message it conveys.

15 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

sc_taylor

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed