Reviews

The concept of this Film had me intrigued. A hopefully poignant look at the dark side of social media. Instead it is a journey into hate and hopelessness.

So we have a young woman who is clearly depressed, lonely and lacking in just about every area of her life. She decides to try and spice things up a bit by living a fantasy online. Things get a lot out of hand when the place she is "visiting" ends up suffering from attacks and she is "supposedly" caught in the middle of it. Because this woman is clearly not in a good place she decides to keep the fantasy going and her life spins out of control with devastating results.

The sad thing is that the lie she is living actually starts to make her life better. She starts connecting with people, making friends and getting promoted. But she is still a terribly damaged person and the way she is presented makes it hard to like her. She's dumb, obnoxious and oblivious. But she does actually care for the friend she makes. But this all comes to nothing when her lies are exposed and she ends up in a worse place than where she began.

No forgiveness, no redemption, no help. This poor woman destroys her life and at the end of the film is left with less than nothing. Yes what she did was bad, yes she lied about having gone through something terrible and made friends and gains on false pretenses. But why should her life effectively be over? She didn't kill anyone.

The writer and director seems to have absolutely no empathy for her and the fact that she was clearly unwell before she entered into this fantasy life. There's no attempt to help her, redeem her or understand her. She's just there to be vilified, crucified and hated on. Death threats galore. What kind of message is that to send to the youth of today?

Apparently according to this film it's not ok to be anything other than a "real victim" and it's not ok to have a voice unless you are a victim. It's also not ok to forgive or to empathise or to have compassion for someone who makes mistakes (especially when they are choices fueled by poor mental health) unless of course the person in question is a real victim.

Why does the writer just want us to hate everyone that isn't portrayed as a poor innocent victim? Where is the positive message? Where is the hope?

All I got from this film was a bitter and unpleasant journey into nihilism, oh and that straight white women are privileged and suck. Just enough of this already. Let's bring back some hope and compassion into movies! Let's show people how to take responsibility for their actions, how to get help and how to thrive. Let's not glorify in their destruction and join the bandwagon....

I love a good mystery thriller (think The fugitive, Don't say a word, Red Eye etc) and i'm not expecting an entirely plausible masterpiece of cinematography when I watch these kinds of movies. I'm looking for an entertaining bit of suspense filled escapism. I don't think it's too much to ask for. Gasoline Alley, however misses the mark on so many levels it hurts my brain to try to fathom how it managed to get made and inflicted on the general populace?

I got pulled in by the intriguing plot synopsis and the fact that Bruce willis and Luke Wilson were starring (not going to make that mistake again!). I thought i would be in for an enjoyable escape from reality for 90 minutes. I was wrong.

The plot makes no sense. The pacing is terrible and 20 minutes in i was bored confused and questioning whether to chuck in the towel and give up. Alas I was too tired to pick another movie and soldiered on. I wish i hadn't.

The movie feels like it was written and filmed by amateurs trying to make an edgy movie by using loads of close up shots of Sawa and terrible nails on a black board type music. It is a spectacular failure.

None of the characters get any kind of a backstory that explains their actions or motivations in anything remotely approaching satisfactory. At one point some dude ends up dead in a car and the reason for him ending up there Is barely fathomable and makes so little sense. I believe it was some sort of message for the have a go hero. But then again it was hard to distinguish anything relevant going on at the neon close up shot rave party type thing.

Everything is superficial and Bruce Willis is there in name only. His character, and his acting of said character, is as stale as a 20 year old loaf of bread. The lines he does manage to mumble explain nothing about how he ends up as the bad guy or why. How did Bruce end up here? Jesus christ! He deserves every Razzie he gets and then some!

Due to making a tiny human it is not often nowadays that I get to watch a movie and it struck me whilst watching this piece of garbage that it has been a while since I've watched a good "new" movie. What heck has happened to cinematography?

Please save yourself the agony of watching this. It really is bad. Go back to the 90's and watch something written and produced by someone with a brain!

The first 2 seasons of this show were gripping and interesting to watch, save a few too many long and I guess "artistically poignant" June gazes/ugly cry faces.

Things rapidly started to go down hill at the end of season 2, where June makes some catastrophically bad decisions, that just aren't logical for someone in her position. Season 3 was a snooze fest interspersed with more frustratingly long "June gazes" and a recurrent theme of "let's persecute and torture June some more." It get's real old real quick and by the end of season 3 you'd pretty much like to bitch slapp June yourself, because the martyr persona she takes on is just too much and too unbelievable. How many times can she get caught/sacrifice herself and not *die* or reach freedom.

The thing is the writer's had a fantastic opportunity to really take this show some place, to build a resistance and actually get it going instead of just endlessly talking about it and dragging it along at a snails pace. I thought I'd give season 4 a go in the hopes that it got better, but the first episode contained about 5 minutes of actual plot at best. The rest seemed to comprise of ridiculously colour washed "June gazes". I got so bored and so frustrated and then upon reading ahead to find out that June gets caught and tortured by aunt Lydia AGAIN for what feels like the 20th time. I just can't anymore, which is sad because I was really hoping to see this show start to improve and go somewhere again.

I know it says that JK Rowling wrote this, but I cannot believe that to be true, given the completely disjointed and unfathomable excuse for a plot. I thought the first "fantastic beasts" film was fairly good but this one. Well after an hour I just couldn't stick it any longer; feeling utterly irritated with the lack of any tangible and discernable storyline. How are you supposed to understand anything when all you get presented with are a bunch of random scenes, events, cgi and characters that don't seem to mesh together. After an hour the only things I understand are that some people are looking for a guy named Credence, but i don't know why. Grindelwald seems to be present for some reason, but he doesn't seem to do anything except appear somewhere and look strange. Newt does stuff with cgi creatures and seems to have been accosted by an Irish accented Dumbledore into looking for Grindelwald(??) In Paris for some reason. I don't know why. Everything is so random. I am fed up of trying to figure out a storyline in this mess and can't bear another hour. I am only glad I didn't pay to see this at the cinema. I would have been so angry!! Seriously what were David Yates and Rowling thinking?? Bitterly dissapointed.

2012 is by all means a classic disaster movie. You've got the fractured family and the step dad (who of course buys the big one at the ends in heroic fashion to make way for the mother-father reunion you knew was coming ca 20 minutes into the film), you've got the "scientists" nobody listens to, until it's too late, the nutjob (who is of course not a nutjob) and the typical suits from the government who look after themselves before everyone else and get a lesson in humanity. Oh and there's a dog, there is always a dog and the dog always manages to make it out alive after some perilous journey to safety when everyone else around it dies.

The CGI is good (hence the three stars). The acting is well...OK, the plot...njaaa it's a disaster movie and things blow up, get flooded and melt away. The film would have been endurable if it was at least an hour shorter. I really could have done without all the "drama" on the "arks" and the mind-numbingly bad cheese that followed aboard them. Thank god for the fast forward button.

Probably the best way to sum up this film is the line at the end of it where the little girl (who had been wetting the bed and wore "pullups" exclaims that she no longer needs them because she feels safe. Give me a break...seriously? This cheese goes to eleven!

I should add that I like a bad disaster movie (guilty pleasure...what can I say?) But this one wasn't even bad funny, you know when you can laugh at the lunacy...Atomic Twister springs to mind. 2012 is so bad that I had actually seen it once before and mercifully forgotten about it until of course the sense of deja vu I was experiencing when watching it gave way to remembrance of stupid plot details I was reluctant to experience again.

If a cheese fest is what you are after I suggest Flood: a River's rampage. If you want a typical disaster movie that won't make you sit here writing a review about how much you disliked it I suggest Twister or Dantes Peak.

I do not recommend 2012.

Not since the abominable X3 has there been such poor sequel to a film. I actually really enjoyed the first film. Read the books and enjoyed...well at least the first two anyway.

The insurgent film is "inspired" by the Veronica Roth Novel of the same name. To say the film is based on the books is a gross overestimation of the screen writers abilities to adapt a novel and the directors ability to put together a story that is rational and explicable. Nothing in this film makes sense. Especially not in comparison to the books and there several Atlantic ocean sized plot holes.

The film opens with our heroes on their way to Amity, which is more or less where the similarities with the book end. There is no explanation of who Joanna is, no explanation of why they are there or the terms under which they may stay. Tris is messed up but there is no character development between her and Four that truly explains any of that. All of the trust issues between Tris and Four as well as Tris's reckless desire for self destruction are left out of the entire film. Tris does not save Peters life in Amity and she is also fine with guns and killing people despite barely being able to touch a gun in the book!

Nothing about the plot is quite right. It's fragmented and jumbled. The director tries to tell a story much different than Insurgent but keep parts of the plot that belong to the book. Events in the book happen, like seeking shelter in Candor but they don't make sense and are twisted in such a way that they don't resemble either the film or the book.

A great example is the fake death scene. A pivotal scene in the book. Misplaced and totally nonsensical in the film. The real reason for the "faked death" was down to the fact that Jeanine couldn't control Tris. Tris broke every simulation because she was always aware she was in a simulation. Tris broke Jeanine in the end and Jeanine decided to have her executed. She is saved by Peter (because he didn't want to be in her debt) and Cara (a character who doesn't exist in the films but becomes pivotal in the next). The whole point then being that Tris, four and peter ESCAPE Erudite headquarters and make it to Abnegation.

In the film no explanation is given. She is suddenly dead, which Jeanine did not want and then she is alive and there is no attempt at escape. Pointless, inexplicable lunacy from both the director and the screenwriters.

The longer the film went on the more frustrated and annoyed I became with its shear lack of consistency and fluidity. The only reason the film gets 3 stars at all is because the graphics and cinematography were very good.

As all the other reviews have stated. Don't waste your time with this film. Go pick up a copy of the book instead!

I watched this film after hearing rave reviews from friends about how good it was. "Good" (at least in the moral sense) however is not a word I would use to describe this film. I have rarely felt so disturbed and dismayed.

Instead of following the usual overdone superhero theme Kick-Ass tries to take a new seemingly cooler edge. Not only is the superhero not a "true" superhero, but the film tries to shock by taking the level of violence to the depraved. If I had wanted to watch torture, a man being burnt alive, an 11 year old girl getting shot, beaten up and shooting others, repeated stabbings and copious amounts of blood, gore and knuckle dusters I'd have rented a slasher movie. I actually had to fast forward some scenes and look away because they were just too disturbing to watch. I found the violence in Kick-Ass to be abhorrent and frankly unnecessary, even though the film relies upon it in order to shock and remain edgy.

I am glad however that the violence affected me, at least it proves I still have empathy and a sense of morality. Something which I believe this film lacks in its entirety. How is it right to portray this level of violence in a "superhero" film that will be seen by young kids despite the 15 stamp purely because of its genre? Especially when the world is full of people shooting and beating up each other. Kick-Ass might have been different if the characters had reacted to what they were doing in an emotional and consequential way...but they just keep killing like it doesn't matter. As a society we really need to think about the messages films like Kick-Ass are sending out to children and indeed to adults.

Whilst I don't own a uniform, autograph, pair of Vulcan ears or have a restraining order forbidding me from being within 100m of Patrick Stewart, I did grow up watching and loving Star Trek (TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT) and I proudly consider myself a Trekkie.

I was hesitant to see this movie because TOS is not really my thing, but last night I finally gave it a go and now really wish I hadn't. I can see why there are so many peed off fans and negative reviews here, because quite frankly this film isn't Star Trek. It is a poor rehash that is quite frankly an insult to the fans. It has been a long time since I have shouted abuse at the TV and even longer since I actually felt like turning it off and burning the DVD.

The film had a distinct Star Wars feel to it. Vulcan children dressed like little Jedis reciting maths in strange holes in the floor, Vulcan children bullying???, Vulcan children fighting??? Everything about this film was off and I wouldn't be surprised if Abrams has never even seen a Star Trek episode/film...it would in fact explain a lot.

Some of the verbal abuse moments included:

* Vulcan being blown up with almost it's entire population * Spocks mother dying * Kirk being chucked off the ship in an escape pod (clearly Abrams just forgot about confining crewmen to the quarters or the brig???) I almost switched off at that point. * The revelation that those weird tattooed aliens I had been staring at for 45 mins were in fact Romulans! * The concrete breeze blocks in the pipe filled main engineering. Plus the fact I think there were multiple warp cores??? * Spock and Uhura * Everyone standing around watching whilst Spock almost kills Kirk

The list I'm afraid could go on and on and on.

The biggest problem with this film is not the details but the fact that it totally trashes what Star Trek is about. Star Trek is a show that examines humanity, that questions morality and ethics. It is a show with brains, that encourages, develops and provokes thought. It is about exploration and politics, philosophy and society. It is a show that does not condescend its audience.

Star Trek 2009 stuck two fingers up at that and went another way. To sum it up this film is not a trek for trekkers.

This movie is basically disaster movie 101 with fancy special effects and a script not even worthy of being used as toilet paper.

If you are in anyway familiar with the disaster movie genre you will recognise the under developed and badly scripted "escapees" without so much as a glance. First of all you have the obligatory bad dude who (in true Hollywood style) stays around just long enough for you to hate him and then gets his karma in the grimmest of ways. Then you have the father/daughter/future son in law triangle...which incidentally must have come from a scriptwriter very familiar with 1998's Armageddon. The mother and bratty kid who you wish would just die...but this is Hollywood and in Hollywood the kid never dies (however annoying he may be!). You also have a few "expendables", who either get badly injured or die. Unfortunately this script just lacked the estranged husband/wife/son/daughter (which the disaster reunites) and the dog (you ever notice how many disaster movies feature a dog, who incidentally NEVER dies?) Sadly the very fact that this movie actually tried to take itself seriously with all the 160 million dollars (which must have gone solely on Kurt Russel and the special effects) gave it a feeling of something much more than it was and made it impossible for me to enjoy it as a perverse comedy like so many other disaster movies.

The corny lines, heroism, strong men and weepy women just made me want to hurl heavy objects at the TV. I know disaster movies take a lot of license with physics (heres looking at you atomic twister), but seriously, SERIOUSLY...if a large ship sinks and you are in the vicinity then you go bye bye, thanks to the rather large and powerful suction effect created by a sinking ship. Unfortunately the sinking ship physics is just one of a million. The script writers clearly don't have a clue about how pressure functions or electricity, let alone the mechanics of a ship.

*sigh* I still hold onto the hope that one day someone will actually come up with an original, well thought out disaster movie, which is devoid of all the sentimental clap trap and god awful stereotypes so prevalent in anything coming out of Hollywood.

Would it be too much to ask that script writers actually treat their suspense loving audiences with the dignity and intelligence to which they should be afforded? That means to say, with a brain capable of thought? See this movie only if you want to tear your hair out, or can look past the grandeur and (fairly well crafted, but frustrating) suspense for its comedic values.

The only thing that kept me watching this god awful train wreck of a movie was to find out who the girl's damn father was. If I had known that I would never get to find out the answer I could have saved myself 2 hours of unmitigated torment.

Having heard people rave about this movie and not being averse to either ABBA or musicals I decided to give it a try when it came on Swedish TV. Sadly I will regret that decision for quite some time to come. Not only was the WHOLE film over the top with an abundance of unnecessarily shrieking women, the script was abysmal at best. The plot did not flow and seemed only there to serve as an entrance to yet another ABBA song. The last conversation Sophie and her future husband to be have before they get married is one about how neither one knows what they want anymore...next thing we see is them...getting married???

Plot holes and inconsistencies aside the film suffered from big-name cast overkill and aside from Meryl, Seyfield and Brosnan was woefully underused. Some of the singing *cough* Brosnan *cough* made me want to dive under my sofa cushions and not come back out. When Brosnan sings SOS it sounds like he is trying to scrape Catarrh out the back of his throat with a piece of sandpaper, achieving little success. I cannot understand why in a musical film you would need to use talented drama/comedy actors when the vast majority of the plot is based around singing!? Surely using people with a decent set of vocal chords would have been better! It is ABBA after all and as anyone who has tried to howl out the lyrics to Dancing Queen on the karaoke will know, it does not sound good if you cannot sing.

The cinematography was also underused. I cannot think why they staged the whole thing on a Greek island. They could have been anywhere! Add to that the terrible camera angling, lighting and settings and the entire production just smacks of amateurism.

The only reason this film gets two stars is because Meryl Streep was decent and the music is ABBA. Other than that there is nothing positive left to say. I am only glad that the sickly sweet ending didn't make me vomit up my dinner.

When making a Jane Austen film there is one golden rule that must be followed by any scriptwriter brave enough to take it on. DO NOT MESS WITH AUSTEN'S LANGUAGE! The language used in Jane Austen's books is the reason for it's longevity and popularity today. It is a beautiful subtle tapestry of wit, propriety, satire and irony; written in such a way that the words roll off the tongue like poetry. It is a dance, a play between people in which one must cut between the social politeness of the time to see what is really going on.

What this film did was to take Austen's language, douse it in petrol, set fire to it and then feed it to a rabid dog. The scriptwriter should be shot. When Elizabeth ran up the stairs screaming "for once in your lives leave me alone" something inside me died.

This film completely lacked the subtle interplay that comes from Austen's language, it lacked any of the social satire so famed in Austen's works and it completely lacked the delicate tension between Darcy and Elizabeth so carefully mounted in Austen's script.

The scriptwriter CLEARY had no knowledge of how to write in the English regency style LET ALONE attempt Austen! Some of the lines felt very Americanised, far too modern and far too much use of slang to be considered a part of Austen's world.

What gets me is if you are going to do a Jane Austen novel in period, then you must use Jane Austen's words. You cannot put a modern twist on a period drama as this director and writer seem to have done. If you want to make a modern version then make a modern version don't opt for something in between, because the only thing you'll achieve is a great pile of nothingness and a bunch of very angry Austen fans! Somebody really should have contacted Emma Thompson for some script writing assistance! Austen's words speak for themselves!

There were some incredibly dodgy costume choices for the period in question too and for a man to enter the bed chamber of a woman...well if the scriptwriter wants shooting then so do the researchers! And could somebody please tell me why all of the cast members looked as if they had been in contact with a blind sheep shearer? I have never seen such awful haircuts!

The real beauty of some scenes were missed or completely ignored, for example. In the film Elizabeth is seen receiving Jane's news of Lydia's elopement and then seconds later is sobbing so much she can't deliver the news to her uncle, aunt and Darcy. In the book, Lizzy receives the news alone and is just digesting it when Darcy comes to call. He sees that something is immediately wrong, sits Lizzy down and is desperately worried for her and her situation. In this scene it is made so abundantly clear how much Darcy cares for Elizabeth, yet how constricted he is by the social rituals he must adhere to as a man of his stature. Lizzy is not a hysterical wreck and the subtle interplay between them both in this scene melts my heart. The film completely destroyed this scene! The writer and director NEVER made use of any scene to it's best advantage!

The actors themselves were also short of their mark's, with the one exception of Judy Dench who can do this sort of stuff in her sleep.

Keira Knightly's Elizabeth was far too headstrong and dare I say obnoxious for the character of Lizzy. Yes Lizzy was headstrong, playful with her words and not afraid to speak her mind. But she was also a woman in possession of good social conduct and always toed the line with regards to society. That is why her father considers her to be the only sensible daughter he spawned! The Elizabeth played by Knightly did not have any of the subtleties or the quiet sense of strength for which Elizabeth is known. Knightly's Elizabeth was almost as hysterical as Lydia in some scenes and she did not possess the grace or demeanour to effectively pass off Elizabeth.

Donald Sutherland's Mr Bennett...I don't even know where to start...he lacked all the delicate irony and understanding Austen gifted him with in the book.

Mr Darcy...well he had a hard act to follow...and follow it he could not. He lacked Darcy's pride, but the material with which he was given was shocking. "I love you"...Austen did such a good job of conveying the love and passion between Darcy and Elizabeth that there was never any need to affirm it in such a cheap hollywoodistic way! I could go on and on about the pitfalls of this film for ever. It really is an abomination of Austen's most cherished work.

Get the BBC mini series on DVD and fall in love with the real magic of Austen's words! ** Only for the cinematography.

This film had the potential to be truly great, perhaps even on a par with the fantastic First Contact. However the promise that the film started with was quickly lost in a similar and depressing way to Insurrection.

I really didn't think another Star Trek film could be as bad as insurrection let alone worse, but Nemesis certainly was. When I saw the trailers I thought wow! finally a film about the Romulans and knowing TNG's past story lines involving the Romulans I believed the writers would come up with something truly great, sadly I was wrong.

The film starts well (except for that ridiculous sand buggy shoot out which was soooo cheesy) but is quickly lost in a rush of badly filled in backstory, which leaves great holes in the plot that are never explained e.g. why exactly evil picard wants to destroy Earth when surely Romulus (his enslavers and creators) would be more relevant and what some of the Romulans are doing helping out evil Picard if they were even doing that? plus which plot hole did they disappear through? The plot mostly focuses on picard, data/data's 'brother' (whom I was sure was going to be Lore, which would have been much better than the really odd B4) and the strangely camp clone of picard. I was disappointed not to see more use of worf/will/crusher/deanna and Geordie and the Picard/data/evil guy (who wasn't really all that evil) scenes get weary and repetitive.

The big battle the whole thing builds up to is ridiculous and really just 15mins of continuous star trek spirit killing special effects which basically ate up the budget which might have provided a decent plot! The fight itself was odd! Where did the bubble type shield that normally surrounds the ship go? Why were the Romulans helping Picard and how did they know to get there? and how the hell did the enterprise not get blown up? Plus since when has a star trek ship ever got ready for a battle like that before, also Data's flying trick was an eye rolling moment.

The ending was just...bad, Data's outcome was wrong and surely there would have been a much better send off for poor Data! It was a dismal ending to what has been a great series and a poor way to finish the main characters last journey together.

Drawing on the Romulan conflict from the series (there by limiting the backstory and allowing for more plot development) instead of focusing on Remus and perhaps even bringing back Sela in a tale of subterfuge and warfare would have been much more appealing, plus actually giving all the cast an somewhat more equal amount of screen time would have made it better. A film with Romulans had so much promise and the film did start with that but it went away from its star trek roots and got lost in the special effects and the enormous plot holes.

If there's to be a DS9/Voyager film then I implore Rick Berman to steer well clear of it! Bring back proper Star Trek story lines!

I watched this movie for the first time last night and after the first half thought that it might just break the traditional Hollywood disaster movie mould. Sadly I was wrong. The Latter half of the movie was vastly predictable and contained some very 'hollywood moments'.

The lead cast, Pierce brosnan and Linda Hamilton made a good job of the parts they were given, but ultimately could not save the dire script and predictable ending.

The movie was quite scientifically accurate, which for a disaster movie is pretty much unheard of. However it suffered from taking the laws of physics/reality into its hands on a number of occasions and bending them at will, for example (***spoilers***) when pierce drives the car over the solidifing lava flow, 1)the multiple fires in/on the car miraculously go out and 2) the car is still drivable and not only that is able to out run a pyrocrastic flow on just its tyre rims! The laws of physics also seemed to bend a bit when Piece's hand and shirt covering it somehow came out of the sulphuric acid lake intact when the lake was burning through the metal boat, obviously jacket fabric is a lot stronger than metal.

I also found it highly cheesy that 1) there was a dog 2) that it managed to escape the lava flow spewing down the mountain and 3) miraculously found itself on the ledge that the burning car was passing at exactly the same moment. Aside from a few other cheesy and unbelievable moments and the inevitable outcome the film was a good time passer.

(***end spoilers***)

It began with much promise and for a second I actually thought I might have a tough time predicting the events, but Hollywood got in the way with much cheesiness and unreality.

Over all not bad but with a bit of plot tweaking (ie getting rid of the dog, the kids, the grandmother and countless predictable deaths) it could have been much better.

6/10