Reviews

If it weren't a fairly obvious rip off of 'Borderlands' (aka 'Final Prayer') then I would give it a bit more credit. It's not bad. But, as I say, if you liked it, give the other film a go.

It's hard to imagine how this is so awful. Some of the leads are really solid actors - but some of the younger cast are absolutely dreadful. The writing is the worst thing about this show, however - utter rubbish, so badly observed that your disbelief just cannot be suspended. Such a shame because the basic plot is a good one.

It took me a few minutes but I soon realised that Jude Law was doing some feeble impression of Don Logan from 'Sexy Beas't. The writing is absolutely awful - a script crammed with stilted lines, just desperate to become a 'cool quote'. Good luck with that... The acting is equally dreadful with Jude Law hamming it up and surrounded by utterly worthless performances all round. The story jumps around like it's three ideas competing to catch your attention - and none of them are more than vaguely interesting. Avoid this clumsy, tired pile of half-baked, would-be-gangster-chic toss.

This awful film is right up there on my 'worst ever' list. I thought Netflix was supposed to provide, exciting, cutting-edge entertainment; this is absolute dreck! Horror fans, stay away! It's an absolute insult of a movie.

I presume this series was produced on the back of the hugely impressive 'Black Mirror'. Considering the money that's clearly gone into it, the series is incredibly weak. Four episodes in, and all but 'the commuter' have proved to be fairly rambling, uninspiring pieces. They're like Dr Who episodes minus the charm and imagination. God knows if they're faithful to the original short stories, but in the end, I suppose it makes no difference.

How on earth is this such a boring 'drama'?! The writers had the irresistible backdrop of Nazi-occupied London and licence to create any related storyline that they could conjure.

So how have we ended up with this dried up, bumbling series of uninteresting scenes? I cannot be alone on not giving a monkey's about what is happening.

Nothing is remotely 'dramatic' about any of it - not even accidentally. It's embarrassing.

Horribly misjudged.

Incredibly, it actually combines the worst aspects of different genres: We've got the moronic, boring waffling of Big Brother AND poorly made, low-budget, story-free zombie stuff.

At least actual Big Brother features 'genuine' morons.

While Im putting the boot into this rubbish: the 'army voice-overs' sound like the stilted scripting of a 1990s video game.

Low production values is not necessarily a death-blow but this not only looks like a 3rd year drama project, it is unforgivably dull.

(Imdb want more lines, but I think you get the idea...)

The subject matter is fascinating so it was bitterly disappointing to have it thrown away on a pompous twerp like Alex Polizzi. She starts in Venice and spends the first few minutes putting the boot into tourists that dare to show up! It really was quite embarrassing to watch her look down her nose at visitors and bemoan the fact that Venice draws a crowd. Years ago, Fry and Laurie did a superb sketch about pseudo-intellectual snobs discussing 'our Venice'. It all sounds precisely like that.

The whole thing is thoroughly spoiled by a terrible choice of presenter. Oh, and is it really a 'secret' that if you "open your wallet wide" you can stay in very expensive hotels? Do me a favour.

I could just about put up with the usual Hollywood nonsense of Americans playing non-American heroes but... When English actor Mark Strong turned up and actually PUT ON an American accent to play a Roman soldier I had to draw the line. The story is interesting but, in the hands of Hollywood, it holds the faint stink of yet more American revisionism.

Whichever way you cut it, the film really does seem to be suggesting that Americans pulled off the heroics of a people that existed long before the US was even a country. It's all just faintly embarrassing. Im sure that the vast majority of Americans would be very happy to watch characters being played by non-Americans but the money men of Hollywood insist of making an extra 3 dollars by casting the likes of Channing Tatum to play Latin-speaking Italians. It's ridiculous.

Not a shred of the original charm remains. It's an animated corpse of a film. Talking of which, what the devil happened to Sean Patrick's face?! Between his plastic surgery and moronic ranting he looks vaguely sub-human.

Basically, scenes from the original 'Boondock Saints' are remade into stilted, feeble replicas. It's witless, poorly written and desperate.

If you loved the original (and I did) please do yourself a favour, resist the temptation and avoid this mess. At least that way, the magic of the first film will remain untarnished in your memory!

(Imdb want more lines, so Im padding.)

A pretty disappointing start. The presentation of our 'hero' is a right mess. We're lead to believe he is dangerous and sexually threatening (which he is, it turns out!). It's confusing for the audience because our 'heroine' is clearly fearful of him. So she should be: he can destroy her and her family on a whim and he is also responsible for the death of her husband. When they meet she is desperate to secure her family's heritage while he is just desperate to have sex with her. And then later he tries to rape her. And yet... she suddenly declares her burning, undying love for him.

The audience is entitled to feel a little uneasy at this bizarre turn of events. Oh and there's magic too. Which seems a bit odd.

Then we meet the 'villains' but, to tell you the truth, I didn't dislike them more than I already disliked our leading couple. There just isn't anything likable about the pair of them. Shame too because I would loved to have enjoyed a historical thriller in the same vein as The Tudors. Unfortunately, this ain't it.

Nothing wrong with extreme violence and gore in films, I reckon, but it's always a bit embarrassing when films like this pretend that they're oh-so-much-more than just a bunch of maniacs chopping each other up.

Started off well but turned into a waste of time. The three acts / directors novelty doesn't work. It only has the effect of creating a disjointed and clumsily connected story.

Comedy in horror is extremely difficult to do. The Evil Dead series got it right; George Romero got it right. This load of old toot is just boring.

Black comedy is a tricky one to get right - and this mess doesn't get close to funny.

The comedy element is feeble and the comic element is further diluted by inexplicable attempts at dramatic sequences. It's hard to imagine the makers nodding enthusiastically at the so-called jokes and agreeing that this was the best they could come up with.

Simon Pegg has been in some fantastic films (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) but it looks like he can't cut it without Edgar Wright.

This travesty scores a 1 for me because on top of being embarrassingly unfunny, the subject matter is the real-life story of serial killers who murdered elderly people - er, hilarious.

Yeah, its been made with sincere enough intentions but it's b0llocks. Everyone over-acting like their lives were at stake. It's all a bit embarrassing. The characterisation is non-existent - you just don't give a sh*t about anyone and this is a big mistake in a zombie flick. Some of the set ups had potential but it's all just too amateurish.

IMDb wants me to add more lines but I don't really have anything else to add.

Apparently I still haven't added enough lines - hence this line.

And this one.

Ditto.

As a glossy, moving tribute to the men that served, it works very well. No-one could doubt the individual acts of heroism and brotherhood scattered throughout the war. But surely the makers owe these guys a balanced representation of the bigger picture?

The tribute is diminished somewhat by the unnecessary pro-American overkill. So we are treated to faceless Germans behaving like the Marx brothers and Brits lazily portrayed as incompetent footnotes to history. Even the European resistance fighters are treated with faint disdain. Issues such as the US's non-involvement during the first few years of the war and the massive British/ non-American losses are either ignored or tagged on as a magnanimous after-thought, at the end of the episode.

I suppose what Im saying is, where is the respect? Plenty for the square-jawed, handsome good-guys (ie. Americans) but not an awful lot left over for anyone else... I'm not sure what the genuine good-guys would have made of that.

The basic notion is actually a decent-enough premise for a story: a gas crisis leads to a rapid breakdown of society. Fair enough.

However, the acting is so amateurish and the sets so poor that it really does have all the production values of a mid-range porn flick. To be fair, the female lead seems to have sufficient credibility but literally everyone else is awful.

The music consists of some 'Deer Hunter'-inspired acoustic guitar plucking and is often accompanied by extended scenes of the countryside. It feels like an advert for a 10-cd, easy-listening pack.

I thoroughly recommend not bothering with this; it is utterly unrewarding as a film experience.

Clive Barker is a terrific horror writer and the transition to film works pretty well here. On the face of it, the film is set up like a forgettable 'student slasher' but thankfully it holds significantly more in terms of chills, character development, nice touches and well-worked horror.

I imagine it would please most horror fans - if you like horror it should be right up your street; and if you don't like horror, what on earth made you watch what was obviously not a Disney classic?!

I thought the film was also pretty impressive technically - the lighting, acting and sets are excellent and help set this film apart from similarly-themed, inferior efforts.

I don't mind religious silliness being used for supernatural films but this is a bit muddled. It's supposed to be a trainee priest's return to faith - but faith is 'belief with no evidence' and this particular 'lapsed catholic' gets treated to nothing BUT hard evidence!

Hopkins, capable as ever, turns in a decent performance, seemingly without effort. But it's not enough to save a by-the-numbers story.

Some of the shots of Rome / Italy are beautiful enough, as you might expect but the heavy-handed, Christian angle is predictable and a little cringe-worthy.

If you like exorcism movies, give it a whirl but don't expect anything new.

I mean, it's not like it's so much worse than a 1000 other god-awful, churned out, so-called 'rom-coms' but maybe I've just come the end of my tether with this kind of sh1t.

The bloke character is the usual generic bell-end and the woman character is just a thoroughly unlikeable tw^t.

The story is lighter than a f*rt in a hot-air balloon and contains no surprises of any kind.

IMDb want me to pad out this review with more lines but I cant bring myself to say any more about it. Would it be OK if I just told you that the weather in my town wasn't very good today?

Plenty of differing opinions out there about 'Eraserhead'. My own explanation about its significant cult following is that a great many of its fans took their lead from very positive comments made by other directors. Now, it's easy to imagine why it appeals so much to other film-makers: it is a supremely self-indulgent piece and appears to have been produced without any directorial limitations whatsoever. For better or worse, Lynch's vision is there in all its unadulterated completeness.

Little wonder that other directors find the whole thing so attractive. However, a regular cinema-goer invariably approaches a film with no such envy and need give no particular credit for such 'individualism' (other than a bit of a nod for originality maybe).

Personally, whilst I am always positive about original features in film, I thought that beyond the surrealism and bizarreness, 'Eraserhead' delivers very little.

The cast is great: good actors doing a good job.

The film is often enjoyably tense but I wouldn't describe it as a thriller. I don't want to sound too pretentious but the film is very much an existentialist discussion centred on the value of man, aspirations and despair along with related themes.

I was very pleased that the radio-based, evangelist drivel was woven into Stone's own, self-serving ramblings - demonstrating that the sea of so-called spiritualism and organised religion is all one, great morass of ignorance, superstition and manipulation. At least, that was my understanding of the script.

A moving film with some thoughtful ideas.

'Prowl' is one of the never-ending 'young-people-with-dirty-faces-looking-scared' series. The basic story will have you looking at your watch and the script is virtually non-existent.

What makes this film especially objectionable though is the cynicism that has gone into its production. The running time is about 77 minutes (minus credits) and even that is shamelessly padded with empty scenes. Worse still is the lame ending which is clearly designed to pave the way for a sequel (which will never come if this effort is anything to go by). This kind of 'non-ending' is an awful way to treat the poor devils that actually paid to see your film.

Even horror fans should avoid this mess; it's not even a late-night TV filler - and that's saying something.

'The House that Dripped Blood' is my all-time favourite Amicus anthology. I know fans often disagree about 'the best one' but Im sure we all agree that you cant get enough of this unique brand of fabulous horror.

Some 1st-rate performances from Lee and Cushing, to name but two. And great support all round - not least from Ingrid Pitt's wardrobe manager (sorry, I couldn't resist it!) If only Vincent Price could have somehow been squeezed in (I read in the trivia that he almost played the John Pertwee role)... I love it that the excellent performances are professional and complete - there's no sense that this is a low-budget / b-movie production from any of the cast.

It's poignant to remember that there is a finite amount of this never-to-be-repeated gold. But it feels all the more precious for that.