Change Your Image
bob-lambert
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Poirot: Hercule Poirot's Christmas (1994)
Poorly Done
Not only is this not particularly true to the book, but the screenplay is badly done. These are wealthy and well educated people, yet the grammar in the script is poor. Family is a singular noun, so should always take a singular verb, yet repeatedly the script writers get this wrong. It isn't "Do the family know you're coming?", it's "Does the family know you're coming?". It isn't "My family hate me", it's "My family hates me".
This really isn't complicated, it's basic English grammar, and this quite simple error completely undermines the illusion about the family and its circumstances. It's also the sort of grammatical slip that Poirot would have spotted immediately...
The Ninth Gate (1999)
Requires concentration and some thinking, but well worth it...
Let's start by addressing the negative reviews of this film. It is clear that many of the reviewers were expecting a five minute prologue to introduce some simplistic characters, followed by 90 minutes with a host of winged, clawed, fire-breathing demons, with lots of slashing and blood, ending with a huge climactic conclusion with ten minutes of implausible fighting, and they were disappointed. What they weren't expecting was to have to concentrate, to follow and understand the plot, to work out the clues, and to ..... think for themselves a bit and use their imaginations while enjoying the journey!
So, if you only like films where you don't have to think, and where the bad guys all have European accents and obvious world domination motives, and where every small detail of the plot is laid out for you verbally and in simple sentences by the characters, and there's lots of blood / gore / explosions, then don't watch this - just head straight for re- runs of Die Hard (which, for clarity, I also like, but in a completely different way from this film).
If, on the other hand, you enjoy clever films with an interesting story, where the plot develops and twists and turns gently to keep you on your toes, and where you are never quite sure who are the good guys and the bad guys, or where all of the protagonists are decidedly ambiguous, then this is for you.
The scenery and cinematography are perfect and absorbing, the dialogue is credible and realistic. The acting is generally excellent, with only a couple of small parts of scenes where the performances are a bit flat. The ending isn't simply tacked on (as others have said), but is a sensible and interesting conclusion to a compelling story, tying together the rest of the plot in a way that makes logical sense of all of the twists and turns and clues. I don't want to say more and spoil the ending, but I will say that it isn't a huge, ten minute, edge of your seat epic struggle. It is an appropriate, relatively low-key finish, where you are left to imagine the obvious details, but that in no way detracts from the ending - it simply relies on you being vaguely intelligent, and doesn't insult that intelligence by spoon-feeding you.
I have a couple of minor gripes with this film. I can't believe that a rare book dealer would smoke and drink while examining the books (he actually smokes and drinks OVER the books), or would treat them with such lack of care (wrapping his copy in a cloth instead of packing it more robustly, leaving it in all sorts of strange places, allowing someone the opportunity to switch the book, forcing the pages flat so as to break the spine, etc.). I also struggle to believe that he didn't make better notes when comparing the books (I don't want to say any more.....!). A Rolls Royce wouldn't stop just because it was being driven through a ford in a river - it might stall, but it's a 2.3 ton car so its momentum would keep it rolling. The matte work and effects on the castle looks a little crude, even for 1999. However, none of this detracts from an excellent and very enjoyable film.
CSI: Crime Scene Investigation: Living Legend (2006)
Revenge!
As has already been said, the fact that the CSI team didn't spot the prosthetics on the first photo was bad enough, but when they couldn't see that the first two killers were the same person in prosthetics the whole episode lost all credibility. Add the third and fourth photos and it degenerates to laughable. There's a difference between the willing suspension of disbelief that pervades all of the CSI franchise (like the way that zooming in can reveal more details regardless of the resolution and contrast of the original picture), and straightforward stupidity for the purpose of the plot.....
But, there is a redeeming feature to this episode if you are British - Roger Daltrey's awful American accent! It's never better than poor for much of the show, but the low point is the hospital scene where it's almost non-existent. After 42 years we finally have revenge for Dick Van Dyke's Cockney accent in "Mary Poppins"!
Mussolini and I (1985)
Attention to detail?
As with many things in life, the devil is in the detail, and this film fails massively in that area.
Actually, it doesn't even get out of the starting gate because its title is grammatically incorrect. It should be "Mussolini And Me", not "Mussolini And I". I have no interest in watching an English language production where the scriptwriters, producers etc. can't even get such basic grammar right. Nonetheless, I watched twenty minutes before deciding that my initial assessment was correct, and that the film makers had paid no attention to any sort of detail, or character development. The reviewers who likened this to Dynasty, or a Venezuelan soap opera, had it about right.
Presumably the rest of the film is littered with similar lack of attention to detail as the title and the first twenty minutes, but I have to be honest and say that I neither know nor care.
Above Suspicion (2009)
Another illogical screenplay.
Can I start by saying that, with a few changes, this would have got 7 or 8 stars. However.....
Why didn't they simply ram the plane at the end. It wasn't moving, their car was doing at least 40mph, there's no way the plane would have got away - single engine light aircraft on grass just can't accelerate that quickly. It didn't need to be a spectacular fireball, just a tap to break the undercarriage. What persuaded the scriptwriters to make Travis refuse to do it - it made absolutely no sense. Similarly, why didn't Langton simply jump in the driver's seat of the car and chase the plane himself. Just ludicrous. Then, having let the plane take off, why didn't they get on to air traffic control and have the plane tracked? Its range would be around 400 miles maximum, forcing it to land in Europe i.e. somewhere it could easily be tracked and caught when it landed.
Why didn't Travis remember the photo of the aeroplane, and do something about it - it's such an obvious way for a drug dealer to move around? Why did they believe the sister - a known liar - when she sent them on the wild goose chase to the railway station? Why didn't they call the airfield, or the police station nearest the airfield, once they realised they'd been had? Why hadn't they checked the sister's husband's background to find out who he was? Why did they believe an FBI man with an English accent? Why did they let him into the incident room, instead of showing him to an external meeting room? Why did the forensic scientist not call his facial recognition results though to the incident room instead of walking across to reveal the results? Why did the satnav have a route down the unmade track through the wood to the hidden farmhouse? I could go on......
So, a reasonable plot idea, but turned into a poor excuse for a police thriller through complete lack of thought by the scriptwriters. Add the terrible stock characters with little or no character development, and you understand why it's only 1/10.
Shiner (2000)
Average Cockney gangster fare spoiled by yet another illogical script
Aaaaargh! Why do scriptwriters continue to believe that they can have characters do ridiculous things without us noticing?
Why did Simpson not set off for the fight until after the bill had started? He was the promoter, he'd want to be there to meet and greet his guests, and for the publicity, not sitting in a packed stretch limo picking up assorted "Gor Blimey" relatives and singing "My Old Man". Him being there early would have made no difference to the plot other than making it plausible, him arriving late made absolutely no sense at all.
Why did he take his son to deserted wasteland? Why did his minders wander out of sight? It may have made the plot work, but it made absolutely no sense. He could have had the conversation with his son in one of the many rooms at the venue, with the minders outside. That's what ANY sensible person would have done, even an angry Cockney gangster. After all, he wasn't going to murder his son, so didn't need to be in a deserted goods yard.
Why did he want to get rid of the limo? The Police knew his son had been shot, and that Simpson had taken him to the hospital in the limo. He was happy to wander round wearing the blood-soaked shirt, but in any event the limo was irrelevant. Why get rid of it? Another pointless piece of "this is what gangsters do and say" stock script recycling.
Why couldn't Simpson get to the hotel for the confrontation with Spedding before Spedding and his team left? A boxer wouldn't plan on an early morning departure the day after a fight, in case he was injured. Why did Simpson have to walk? The only reason was so that they could have the showdown in the car.
Why did the woman in the tunnel keep ranting after the men with guns had squared off? Why did she not get straight back into her car when told to by Spedding wielding a gun, as any sensible person would have done? Why did she have to be told twice? Simple - so Spedding would get to shoot his gun into the ceiling to demonstrate his credibility as a hard man, regardless of how ridiculous and contrived the set-up was.
Why was the house emptied the day after the fight? Who emptied it? Even the most diligent debt collector couldn't get there that quickly - after all, Simpson hadn't even got round to starting to settle his debts, and the fight could have gone the other way, leaving him a wealthy man. He could also have laid side bets to spread his risk, again obviating the need to liquidate his assets.
And then, why was the final scene, where a deserted goods yard would have been far more appropriate, set on the roof of the venue - a Civic Hall with only two exits? Hardly the sort of place a rational person would choose for a showdown, and not relevant to the plot at all. Perhaps it was just cheap to shoot it in the same place as the earlier rooftop scene, even if it meant sacrificing all logic.
In the midst of all of this rampant stupidity was a script with no style apart from generic third rate Cockney Gangster, and no discernible characterisation, even at the most trivial level. A pity, because in general the cast are all very good, and capable of far more.
Not recommended unless you have no other options on a rainy afternoon.
The Last House on the Left (2009)
Awful
Why do Hollywood scriptwriters and directors insist that people running away and trying to hide will scream and pant and grunt like Monica Seles to allow their pursuers to find them easily? Why do they insist that people will stand around watching their husband / wife struggling to overcome a wounded assailant, but not pick up the nearby knife / hammer / bat / gun to help? Why can't they understand that real people, full of adrenaline, do not stand around and shriek and wave their arms like they are swatting a fly, but will instead act to save themselves and their families? Why do they believe that people will crawl away from the most minor of encounters, instead of standing up and either running, or retaliating?
Useless, on every level. The scriptwriter should be relegated to emptying waste paper bins, which is where his script, and any other scripts he/she writes, and every copy of this film, should be dumped.
If it were possible to award this film a zero I would have done so.
Monsters (2010)
Good idea but illogical characters
Potentially a really good film, but like so many films it is totally spoiled by characters who do stupid things for the sake of the plot.
She just whined all the time, yelling for him when any half intelligent person would have shut up to avoid attracting attention. They meander around and stop to look at the sights when any sensible person would route march. She gives him her passport when any sensible person would have kept it on their person at all times. He gets drunk when any sensible person would stay sober and alert. They leave their bags and possessions lying around instead of carrying them at all times, even when surrounded by unknown and potentially hostile "guides". Then finally, at the end, when they're being rescued from the murderous aliens, she whines "I don't want to go home"!
You get the picture. You spend more than half the time wanting to slap them, and yell at them to stop being airheads. It only gets 4/10 because the idea is interesting, and it's well filmed, and it's not a standard alien shoot-em-up. The acting / script don't even deserve 1/10.
Unknown (2011)
Absolute Rubbish
An average story with some limited potential, but ruined by Liam Neeson's wooden acting, and ruined even more by some ridiculous script and plot elements. The lack of common sense displayed by any of the characters is even worse than in Taken, if such a thing is possible. I don't want to totally spoil the plot in case you still decide to watch this film, but let me give you three examples:
1. Neeson's character fights a man who attacks him, and eventually the man is overcome. Just before the assailant dies, Neeson bangs him against the floor demanding to know who he is, and who sent him. The man dies, saying nothing. Now, any normal person would go through the dead man's pockets for ID or for any other clue as to his purpose or identity. Equally, given his lack of cash at the time, you would expect Neeson simply to grab the dead man's wallet. You would also expect him to take the man's gun - after all his equally vicious partner is still armed and at large. What does Neeson's character do? Grab a notebook (essential to the plot, but he didn't know it at the time), then run away. Unknown 1 - Common Sense 0
2. Neeson and his female companion escape in a borrowed Taxi - a Mercedes saloon. The second armed assailant follows in a much larger and faster Mercedes 4x4. Ignore the ridiculous sound effects as Neeson repeatedly changes gear (note to sound effects: Mercedes saloon taxis do not have gearchange mechanisms that sound like Nascar sequential boxes). It is clear that the assailant's car is quicker and heavier, yet Neeson continues to try to outdrag him and barge him off the road. At no point does he do the obvious thing - let the man get slightly ahead (so Neeson's car is in his blind spot), then brake hard and take the assailant by surprise by turning left / right / U-turning, not even when the assailant is on the opposite side of the road, or behind a set of pillars where he couldn't react quickly even if he spotted the braking manoeuvre. Unknown 2 - Common Sense 0
3. Neeson's character retrieves a briefcase that contains documents vital to the plot, and to his identity. He has spent most of the film looking for this information, yet having found it what does he do? Set about proving his case? Call the investigator working for him to let him know? Go to the Authorities? Put the passport safely in his inside pocket, and lock the rest of the documents in his briefcase then put it in a safe place? No. In spite of being chased, shot at, and set up by various people, and in spite of still having no idea who the good guys and bad guys might be, or how many of them there are, or how to identify them, he sits at a table in a café, alternately waving his passport around or gazing at it for a few minutes, with the briefcase open and in full view on a chair beside him, inviting any passing bad guy to take and destroy the passport and the rest of the documents and other evidence. Unknown 3 - Common Sense 0
This is just the tip of the iceberg. The whole script is littered with scenes where any sensible person would have done almost entirely the opposite of what Neeson's character does. I'm not talking about suspension of disbelief for the basic plot (which I'm broadly quite happy with - after all, it's fiction for the purpose of entertainment), but characters who just do stupid things. What's more annoying is that the plot would have worked just as well if the characters had done sensible things - the stupid actions weren't vital to any of the key plot elements.
A waste of an afternoon. If it had been on TV I'd have turned it off and done the washing up instead.