Is this meant to be the new X-Men spin off? I hope not. I found the characters to be unlikeable and rather 2-dimensional. The young love story really didn't float my boat despite being one myself. Thankfully I could fast forward because the kissing scenes made my skin crawl. This movie seemed so desperate to appeal to gen z that it ended up feeling too contrived and unnatural. This did not feel like an X-Men installment, it felt like an attempt to draw in younger gen z viewers. I hope one day we get a good X-Men movie as this wasn't a satisfying film and does not belong in the franchise for me. I turned it off at the climax because I didn't care about the characters or the story and I was sick of having my intelligence insulted. I couldn't recommend this.
Reviews
10 Reviews
Holding the Man
(2015)
Yet another depressive gay tragedy
5 March 2021
Some of my thoughts about this movie:
* Yet another depressive gay tragedy like almost every other gay themed movie i've ever seen. * It's time we get uplifting movies where the character just happens to be gay, rather than the gay having to be highlighted like ---->this is the gay one!!! See how gay he is!!! He ticks all the boxes! Look at the tragedy of his life!<----. * It'd be good if gay couples aren't always dealt with differently from anyone else in a relationship. ALL relationships require self-sacrifice, work, open hearted conversations, a sharing of feelings, changes to routine, accepting the relationship isn't about "me me me!" and honest self-questioning to work. * Being gay and in a relationship is not all about washboard stomachs, looking hot, lots of partners and constant self-gratification. If it's about those things for you, that's YOUR choice to make it about those things and has nothing to do with you being gay. * Life isn't always a tragedy just because you're gay. * In basically every 'gay themed' movie I've seen there's the same recurring themes as if you're bound to come across these things just because you're gay. * There's more to life than making it all about your sexual preference. * Being gay doesn't always mean:
* Yet another depressive gay tragedy like almost every other gay themed movie i've ever seen. * It's time we get uplifting movies where the character just happens to be gay, rather than the gay having to be highlighted like ---->this is the gay one!!! See how gay he is!!! He ticks all the boxes! Look at the tragedy of his life!<----. * It'd be good if gay couples aren't always dealt with differently from anyone else in a relationship. ALL relationships require self-sacrifice, work, open hearted conversations, a sharing of feelings, changes to routine, accepting the relationship isn't about "me me me!" and honest self-questioning to work. * Being gay and in a relationship is not all about washboard stomachs, looking hot, lots of partners and constant self-gratification. If it's about those things for you, that's YOUR choice to make it about those things and has nothing to do with you being gay. * Life isn't always a tragedy just because you're gay. * In basically every 'gay themed' movie I've seen there's the same recurring themes as if you're bound to come across these things just because you're gay. * There's more to life than making it all about your sexual preference. * Being gay doesn't always mean:
- you shy away from your own masculinity and start acting girlie;
- that your life is a tragedy;
- that you are destined to never have a proper loving relationship;
- that you have to be an activist;
- that it's you pitted against the "non-gay" world.
Powaqqatsi
(1988)
Watch Koyaanisqatsi, Chronos, Baraka or Samsara instead....
12 February 2020
Powaqqatsi goes nowhere at a slow pace. Reggio's indulgence meant that Powaqqatsi's theme which could've been adequately covered in 4 or 5 minutes instead drags on for around 95 minutes before the credits roll. So, essentially, it is 95 or so minutes of people either working, or walking around. It's a disappointing moment when you realise this is all you're going to be watching: people working and people walking around. Sometimes they're dancing, but 99% of the time they're working, or walking. The message it's trying to convey is the disintegration of culture by modernisation, but it's such a diluted attempt to differentiate between the old and the new as it all felt mashed together in such a way that I couldn't see where the old ended and the new began. And it really wasn't helped by Philip Glass's soundtrack. In fact Reggio's indulgence upon people working and walking was only out done by Glass's repetitive and misfitting composition. It's strange because Glass's work on Koyaanisqatsi was phenomenal, infusing Reggio's imagery with purpose, enhancing the narrative.. I don't know what Glass was thinking but his weird 'triumphant' sounding score grated so harshly against the imagery that it seemed at moments actually condescending to the cultures shown. It shifted from condescending to insulting when Glass introduced his little psuedo-ethnic chord progression. The total lack of ACTUAL traditional music of the cultures covered in the manner in which a Michael Stearns might be capable of was actually insulting to the intelligence. Whereas Glass's Koyaanisqatsi score was brilliant, in Powaqqatsi his work becomes highly repetitive and boring as did the endless footage of people working and walking, working and walking, working and walking, staring at the camera blankly, working and walking, working and walking, staring at the camera blankly...
I just could not recommend Powaqqatsi. It's too self-indulgent and pompous to handle its own subject matter humbly, and it's less than a shadow of Reggio's Koyaanisqatsi, and way way below the work of Fricke on Chronos, Baraka and Samsara. Please, watch any of those instead.
I just could not recommend Powaqqatsi. It's too self-indulgent and pompous to handle its own subject matter humbly, and it's less than a shadow of Reggio's Koyaanisqatsi, and way way below the work of Fricke on Chronos, Baraka and Samsara. Please, watch any of those instead.
Pet Sematary
(1989)
Oh Wow what rubbish!
13 June 2018
My partner and I have been having a King movie fest. We started by watching Firestarter then Carrie then the The Shining, and then we watched Pet Sematary. Wow. I know Firestarter is considered by some to be a terrible movie but it actually has a heart and an emotional centre which was very easy to get into. It's also directed really well I felt regardless that King dislikes it. Firestarter is a masterpiece compared to Pet Sematary! This is a laughable forgetful 80s horror movie.. the story and the movie were rubbish. It ripped off the The Amityville Horror soundtrack, then seemed to be trying to bring flavours of Nightmare on Elm Street 3 towards the end.. but it was such a pathetic story with the sidekick ghost and the completely illogical sequence of events when the kid comes back.. it reminded me of why I stopped reading Stephen King books after finishing the 21st one. Such 1 dimensional characters, often schmaltzy and relying on such stereotyped personalities. I'd heard that King absolutely hates Kubrik's Shining. I guess it must be difficult seeing someone take your schmaltzy 1 dimensional work, ignoring your repeated failings and crafting it into a suspenseful and a well directed movie! Stephen King is a writer whose stories only translate to screen well when a director completely ignores King's characterisations. Unfortunately I think the director here remained faithful to King's book as well as throwing in the cheap 80s schlock horror style, thus Pet Sematary ended up as junk. My partner and I both felt the same way about it.
Paranormal Survivor
(2015– )
Half-hearted cheap ghost stories show.
19 March 2016
I made the mistake of watching this show after watching through all the episodes of the show Paranormal Witness.
Paranormal Survivor is really bad, here's what I disliked most about it:
They've used the same settings between different shows, the same house used a few times, the same attic used on two different shows/stories.. so you know the house the person is telling the story about is not the house being shown. This made it difficult to become immersed, because I knew the stories weren't actually taking place in the house I was looking at.
This show contains a hefty dose of cheesy American production techniques. There's cheesy smiling ghosts even though the person says "they had a dead stare on their face". No, in the re-enactment they're smiling broadly. There's also cheesy looking 'demons' with red make up, horns and outstretched 'scary fingers' so bad I laughed and shook my head in disgust.
The actors in the re-enactments are very poorly directed or just amateurs. All the actors look like they were drama students practising acting. "ok, now look surprised!" :O "now look scared!" :{ Also, quite a few of the actors look nothing like the person telling the story which left me confused in a few episodes as to who was meant to be who. In more than one episode a skinny person is played by an obese person. It's distracting and again, kills the immersion.
They dump various paranormal "experts" into episodes without any background info so that I was constantly asking "who's this expert??". They also said nothing of any importance, they just gave justifications for things like "sometimes when people die, they don't know they're dead", and "it's normal to feel a cold patch when a ghost is nearby". After just a couple of episodes I started fast-forwarding whenever the "expert" would appear and start saying nothing of any importance. It's just like they felt obliged to have completely unknown "experts" talk because other shows do too.
The only positive was that I enjoyed the ghost stories themselves true or not.
Honestly though, if you want a quality production with excellent and enthralling re- enactments, avoid this and watch Paranormal Witness instead. The only thing I loathe about Paranormal Witness is the cheap, cheesy and laughable jump scare right at the end of the credits. It's such a pity American TV has a tendency to equate ghosts with cheap jump scares "boo!". That stuff is just really unscary and I don't know why TV shows seem unwilling to let the cheap tactics go.
Paranormal Survivor is really bad, here's what I disliked most about it:
They've used the same settings between different shows, the same house used a few times, the same attic used on two different shows/stories.. so you know the house the person is telling the story about is not the house being shown. This made it difficult to become immersed, because I knew the stories weren't actually taking place in the house I was looking at.
This show contains a hefty dose of cheesy American production techniques. There's cheesy smiling ghosts even though the person says "they had a dead stare on their face". No, in the re-enactment they're smiling broadly. There's also cheesy looking 'demons' with red make up, horns and outstretched 'scary fingers' so bad I laughed and shook my head in disgust.
The actors in the re-enactments are very poorly directed or just amateurs. All the actors look like they were drama students practising acting. "ok, now look surprised!" :O "now look scared!" :{ Also, quite a few of the actors look nothing like the person telling the story which left me confused in a few episodes as to who was meant to be who. In more than one episode a skinny person is played by an obese person. It's distracting and again, kills the immersion.
They dump various paranormal "experts" into episodes without any background info so that I was constantly asking "who's this expert??". They also said nothing of any importance, they just gave justifications for things like "sometimes when people die, they don't know they're dead", and "it's normal to feel a cold patch when a ghost is nearby". After just a couple of episodes I started fast-forwarding whenever the "expert" would appear and start saying nothing of any importance. It's just like they felt obliged to have completely unknown "experts" talk because other shows do too.
The only positive was that I enjoyed the ghost stories themselves true or not.
Honestly though, if you want a quality production with excellent and enthralling re- enactments, avoid this and watch Paranormal Witness instead. The only thing I loathe about Paranormal Witness is the cheap, cheesy and laughable jump scare right at the end of the credits. It's such a pity American TV has a tendency to equate ghosts with cheap jump scares "boo!". That stuff is just really unscary and I don't know why TV shows seem unwilling to let the cheap tactics go.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine
(2009)
you can paint a turd bright red, but then isn't it just a bright red turd?
7 May 2009
This was bad.
So much over-baked bravado that I was embarrassed for Jackman, and disappointed at the trashy throw-away feel of the whole piece. This felt so half-hearted and almost schmaltzy by comparison to the dynamic of the actual X-Men series.
The actors did a great job of playing their parts, as did everyone else and congratulations and best wishes... but someone has to take responsibility for the crp script and a crp execution of a crp script.
Vomitting is more enjoyable an experience than "Wolverine" was.
I am contented to think this was aimed at the intellectual level of a moron, though I feel bad because that's such an insult to the intelligence of morons worldwide.
An unfortunate stain on the franchise. It was all just so... dumb and trashy.
So much over-baked bravado that I was embarrassed for Jackman, and disappointed at the trashy throw-away feel of the whole piece. This felt so half-hearted and almost schmaltzy by comparison to the dynamic of the actual X-Men series.
The actors did a great job of playing their parts, as did everyone else and congratulations and best wishes... but someone has to take responsibility for the crp script and a crp execution of a crp script.
Vomitting is more enjoyable an experience than "Wolverine" was.
I am contented to think this was aimed at the intellectual level of a moron, though I feel bad because that's such an insult to the intelligence of morons worldwide.
An unfortunate stain on the franchise. It was all just so... dumb and trashy.
Exorcist: The Beginning
(2004)
Poor execution of cr*p script
2 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
**SPOILERS AHEAD** (though not spoiling much i can tell you)..
this movie is pretentious and flashy, quick edits and scene cuts with a pathetic card-trickery approach to "who's the possessed character?". if you watch this once then watch it again and ask yourself why the characters did the things they did - the whole movie falls over.
the "horror" scenes take it for granted that you will take it seriously. but this is SUCH a cr*p movie if you question it. if you have come to enjoy well written, acted, directed and scored horror movies (which are surprisingly still few), then lower your IQ to watch this.
there are moments in this movie which have no relevance to anything:
a worker inexplicably collapses and shakes, frothing at the mouth.. but why?
we are at first led to believe the younger boy of two brothers is possibly possessed, but it is revealed (later in the movie) that he ISN'T at all. this left me wondering why he acted the way he did throughout certain scenes. it made no sense.
examples: the boy watches with blank expression as his elder brother is eaten by hyena's. he's put into a hospital bed after he develops a fever, he then develops legions. whilst in his fever, he opens his eyes and stares, then rolls his eyes up and falls unconscious again. his liquid feed fills with blood and he shakes uncontrollably. his bed shakes violently. but why? he's not even possessed.
the NOT-possessed boy appears in a doorway unexpectedly, and in a semi-trance proclaims at a dodgy old man: "he's coming for you!" - but forgets to pee himself immediately afterwards (see "The Exorcist" lounge party scene for further details..). the old man leaves and the boys nurse asks the child "what happened?" (what happened WHEN?). the child's response is "i had a bad dream" - hang on.. what about the 'he's coming for you' part?? where did the little prophetic proclamation come from?? is the kid psychic? no.
..and the possessed woman near the end was a recreation of something done in another movie 30 years ago.. that original characters name was Regan.. this time her name is Jill or something like that (i've already forgotten it's so inconsequential to anything). she still talks about sex. she quips: "you want to shove your **** up her juicy ****...". in this day and age, is that meant to be unnatural or evil? give me a break. this is pathetic. and the final exorcism scenes are just so cheesy.
to top it off the grandiose music in no way matches the movie. the occasional ethno-voices are new-agey, the afro-chants generic. the sound effects are sickly rich, overly produced and too prominent in the sound-design mix. the choirs are too epic. the french horns, the strings, the dramatic fight scene score. is this an Exorcist movie or 'Lord of the Rings'?
the core summary of this movie reveals its hollowness: a Hollywood demon torments an ex-priest into becoming a priest again. whoopee.
this movie is pretentious and flashy, quick edits and scene cuts with a pathetic card-trickery approach to "who's the possessed character?". if you watch this once then watch it again and ask yourself why the characters did the things they did - the whole movie falls over.
the "horror" scenes take it for granted that you will take it seriously. but this is SUCH a cr*p movie if you question it. if you have come to enjoy well written, acted, directed and scored horror movies (which are surprisingly still few), then lower your IQ to watch this.
there are moments in this movie which have no relevance to anything:
a worker inexplicably collapses and shakes, frothing at the mouth.. but why?
we are at first led to believe the younger boy of two brothers is possibly possessed, but it is revealed (later in the movie) that he ISN'T at all. this left me wondering why he acted the way he did throughout certain scenes. it made no sense.
examples: the boy watches with blank expression as his elder brother is eaten by hyena's. he's put into a hospital bed after he develops a fever, he then develops legions. whilst in his fever, he opens his eyes and stares, then rolls his eyes up and falls unconscious again. his liquid feed fills with blood and he shakes uncontrollably. his bed shakes violently. but why? he's not even possessed.
the NOT-possessed boy appears in a doorway unexpectedly, and in a semi-trance proclaims at a dodgy old man: "he's coming for you!" - but forgets to pee himself immediately afterwards (see "The Exorcist" lounge party scene for further details..). the old man leaves and the boys nurse asks the child "what happened?" (what happened WHEN?). the child's response is "i had a bad dream" - hang on.. what about the 'he's coming for you' part?? where did the little prophetic proclamation come from?? is the kid psychic? no.
..and the possessed woman near the end was a recreation of something done in another movie 30 years ago.. that original characters name was Regan.. this time her name is Jill or something like that (i've already forgotten it's so inconsequential to anything). she still talks about sex. she quips: "you want to shove your **** up her juicy ****...". in this day and age, is that meant to be unnatural or evil? give me a break. this is pathetic. and the final exorcism scenes are just so cheesy.
to top it off the grandiose music in no way matches the movie. the occasional ethno-voices are new-agey, the afro-chants generic. the sound effects are sickly rich, overly produced and too prominent in the sound-design mix. the choirs are too epic. the french horns, the strings, the dramatic fight scene score. is this an Exorcist movie or 'Lord of the Rings'?
the core summary of this movie reveals its hollowness: a Hollywood demon torments an ex-priest into becoming a priest again. whoopee.
1408
(2007)
More Stephen King bog..
27 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The scares amounted to: one moment no one there, next camera shot "surprise!" there's a cheesy looking burned-person. So cheap and boooooooriiiiiiiiiing.
With all the fx technology about in this day, why can't anyone design ghosts properly? Why isn't there genuine 'spook' anymore? The "ghosts" in this movie are malfunctioning electronic projections. How is that spooky? The turn of events in the room lacks originality. A radio that plays wobbly music? A melting phone hand piece? the lead character (name already forgotten) confronting his demons? The guy suddenly waking up on the beach? Nothing occurred which suggested there were ghosts at all! Everything was in the head of the lead character. This wasn't a "ghost" story, it was a psychological thriller with cheap thrills. Trashy. Cheesy. Corny.
When the door numbers melted as the room burned I said out loud "oh whatever.." and pressed full forward. So corny corny corny. Corn-fed to sickness. I once enjoyed Stephen King books; I read 19 of them before i realised his characters were repetitively corny American stereotypes, and his idea of "horror" was neither horrific nor scary, it was just cheesy. I don't know whether the book was as cr*p as this adaption, but please already! my god, how much cheese does a person need before dying of cholesterol poisoning!
There are 2 endings to this film, but on the official DVD version the main character is killed. On a version i watched months ago the lead dude survived! The last scene was him back with his wife discovering his daughters voice on the tape recorder which suggested that his experience had been real - it was the only moment of 'class' in the entire film - and IT MADE SENSE!! But with the DVD ending it's Samuel Jackson's character listening to the tape recorder after the lead dudes funeral, and then we get another "surprise!"-burned-person moment in the car. So now the "surprise!"-burned-person "ghost" is in the car? You morons it was the ROOM that was meant to be "evil", the "ghosts" were directly attached to the room! You chose the wrong ending to put on the DVD!
Remember Green Mile? Shawshank Redemption? I want that kind of classy approach to a horror film! Watch "The Others" or "The Changeling" and you'll know how subtlety can win out over crud like 1308 (that's minus the 100 minutes i just reclaimed..).
With all the fx technology about in this day, why can't anyone design ghosts properly? Why isn't there genuine 'spook' anymore? The "ghosts" in this movie are malfunctioning electronic projections. How is that spooky? The turn of events in the room lacks originality. A radio that plays wobbly music? A melting phone hand piece? the lead character (name already forgotten) confronting his demons? The guy suddenly waking up on the beach? Nothing occurred which suggested there were ghosts at all! Everything was in the head of the lead character. This wasn't a "ghost" story, it was a psychological thriller with cheap thrills. Trashy. Cheesy. Corny.
When the door numbers melted as the room burned I said out loud "oh whatever.." and pressed full forward. So corny corny corny. Corn-fed to sickness. I once enjoyed Stephen King books; I read 19 of them before i realised his characters were repetitively corny American stereotypes, and his idea of "horror" was neither horrific nor scary, it was just cheesy. I don't know whether the book was as cr*p as this adaption, but please already! my god, how much cheese does a person need before dying of cholesterol poisoning!
There are 2 endings to this film, but on the official DVD version the main character is killed. On a version i watched months ago the lead dude survived! The last scene was him back with his wife discovering his daughters voice on the tape recorder which suggested that his experience had been real - it was the only moment of 'class' in the entire film - and IT MADE SENSE!! But with the DVD ending it's Samuel Jackson's character listening to the tape recorder after the lead dudes funeral, and then we get another "surprise!"-burned-person moment in the car. So now the "surprise!"-burned-person "ghost" is in the car? You morons it was the ROOM that was meant to be "evil", the "ghosts" were directly attached to the room! You chose the wrong ending to put on the DVD!
Remember Green Mile? Shawshank Redemption? I want that kind of classy approach to a horror film! Watch "The Others" or "The Changeling" and you'll know how subtlety can win out over crud like 1308 (that's minus the 100 minutes i just reclaimed..).
Tideland
(2005)
Bucket anyone?
22 March 2008
The most well written, acted and directed film I've wished I didn't watch. A masterpiece of twisted, sick and horrifying circumstance.
I take my hat off to the entire cast and crew for creating a mesmerizing movie so tainted with simplicity and perversity that I could not turn it off despite the desire to be ill which come over me on a number of occasions.
So powerful, yet such an unnecessary journey. I just can't appreciate Tideland's achievement in pushing boundaries simply for the sake of (..without any apparent intent or meaningful message..) having an impact upon people. I was left disturbed by how far this movie goes, and confused as to exactly what emotions I was intended to feel by such a depressing concept. I was too sickened to laugh.
Pan's Labyrinth in the least was based within some context of war, Tideland was based within.. who the hell knows.
BUT I implore any curious person to watch this film and have your own experience with it. Many people 'appreciated' this film, and I admit I did too.
For making me feel ill I award this movie 10 stars..
..and then minus 9 stars for it's total worthlessness in relation to everything other than itself.
Well done Gilliam, cast and crew! Absolutely fascinating!
I take my hat off to the entire cast and crew for creating a mesmerizing movie so tainted with simplicity and perversity that I could not turn it off despite the desire to be ill which come over me on a number of occasions.
So powerful, yet such an unnecessary journey. I just can't appreciate Tideland's achievement in pushing boundaries simply for the sake of (..without any apparent intent or meaningful message..) having an impact upon people. I was left disturbed by how far this movie goes, and confused as to exactly what emotions I was intended to feel by such a depressing concept. I was too sickened to laugh.
Pan's Labyrinth in the least was based within some context of war, Tideland was based within.. who the hell knows.
BUT I implore any curious person to watch this film and have your own experience with it. Many people 'appreciated' this film, and I admit I did too.
For making me feel ill I award this movie 10 stars..
..and then minus 9 stars for it's total worthlessness in relation to everything other than itself.
Well done Gilliam, cast and crew! Absolutely fascinating!
King Kong
(2005)
Drastically over-romanticised interspecies relationship goes awry..
4 January 2008
After attempting to sit through this film for a third time, I will now say I did partially enjoy it, but then that also means I partially did not. I'll share what I felt about Kong:
* I REALLY appreciated the quality of the CGI in this film. The locations were large scale, epic, gorgeous and presented nicely.
* I DID NOT think the cast fitted together nor that the characterisations of their parts had substance, style or class, but perhaps that could just be me wanting more than what it was meant to be really.
* I DID NOT take to the portrayal of the intimate relationship between a gorilla and a human. I understood the message of animal exploitation for profit, and the humiliation of Kong as being something the leading lady sympathised with - but the writing team took an overly soppy approach rather than a restrained one. There were times I thought the only thing missing was an interspecies sex scene to cement their "connection". The whole animal/human love connection thing was mishandled and came across to me as an unrequited love or lust story rather than that of a compassionate animal protector.
Jack Black's facial expression range was better exploited in "The Holiday" where he managed to portray a sympathetic and sensitive character with substance. In Kong Black has the grin turned up to 110, and it became tiresome very early on in the piece.
I felt miscasting and mis-characterisation deflated the movie terribly, and that was my main snub here right after the insultingly overdrawn ape/human intimacy thing. I felt the cast of this Kong did not fit with one another, to the degree that if you removed the main acting parts and left behind the CGI, you would've likely had a more moving, involving and substantial story.
Is there any one thing I can put my disliking down to? Was it the directing? The fluffed up script? A mishandled storyline? The insultingly overdrawn ape/human intimacy thing? Those missing sex scenes? Somehow it heartens me to realise that I'll spare myself the mental insult of watching it again in order to try and find out.
My scoreboard thus:
CGI: 10 CASTING: 2 APE/HUMAN intimacy thing: 0
* I REALLY appreciated the quality of the CGI in this film. The locations were large scale, epic, gorgeous and presented nicely.
* I DID NOT think the cast fitted together nor that the characterisations of their parts had substance, style or class, but perhaps that could just be me wanting more than what it was meant to be really.
* I DID NOT take to the portrayal of the intimate relationship between a gorilla and a human. I understood the message of animal exploitation for profit, and the humiliation of Kong as being something the leading lady sympathised with - but the writing team took an overly soppy approach rather than a restrained one. There were times I thought the only thing missing was an interspecies sex scene to cement their "connection". The whole animal/human love connection thing was mishandled and came across to me as an unrequited love or lust story rather than that of a compassionate animal protector.
Jack Black's facial expression range was better exploited in "The Holiday" where he managed to portray a sympathetic and sensitive character with substance. In Kong Black has the grin turned up to 110, and it became tiresome very early on in the piece.
I felt miscasting and mis-characterisation deflated the movie terribly, and that was my main snub here right after the insultingly overdrawn ape/human intimacy thing. I felt the cast of this Kong did not fit with one another, to the degree that if you removed the main acting parts and left behind the CGI, you would've likely had a more moving, involving and substantial story.
Is there any one thing I can put my disliking down to? Was it the directing? The fluffed up script? A mishandled storyline? The insultingly overdrawn ape/human intimacy thing? Those missing sex scenes? Somehow it heartens me to realise that I'll spare myself the mental insult of watching it again in order to try and find out.
My scoreboard thus:
CGI: 10 CASTING: 2 APE/HUMAN intimacy thing: 0
Tell Your Friends