Reviews

To be honest I got the same feeling watching this as I did watching The Evil Dead, Assault on Precinct 13, The Fog, Nightmare on Elm Street and the recent Pet Semetery reboots. Un-necessary remakes / reboots. Adding nothing to the mythology of the story. Don't get me wrong, this is not an entirely bad film, in fact, if the Del Toro movies didn't exist, I would have probably rated this film a lot higher. But they do, and this is lacking in comparison. I quite enjoyed the fact most of it was set in the UK, and didn't really find issue with the CGI, something a lot of people have criticised. But it has to be said that some of the acting was terrible and hammy. The character development was almost none existent. And Ian McShane was just soooooo camp, as was Milla Jovovich.

The bottom-line is, yeah this is an ok film, but nowhere near as good as the Del Toro movies. I'm not sure if this was the setup for a Netflix etc, type TV series, which actually could work a lot better than a movie. Oh well. 6 stars and I'm being generous with that score.

This movie has received a lot of hate, and to be fair I can see why. It is a very strange mishmash of a movie that never really knows what it wanted to be. The setting, although has a pretty cool steampunk look to it, is definitely not 10th Century Nottingham. The acting is a little hammy in places. Some of the CGI is a little iffy. The story is .... Well..... insane. The costumes are too modern looking. Etc etc etc. But is the movie fun to watch? TOO RIGHT IT IS.

After watching this, I got the feeling the studio was trying to setup a "super-hero" type franchise, and missed the mark a little. The setting of the movie is a little confusing. Feeling like a fantasy take on the Robin Hood story, which I can imagine put a load of people off. Really enjoyed the action scenes. Fast and well-paced, in my opinion. Ben Mendelsohn (Sheriff of Nottingham) must have had a lot of fun playing the role, trying to be the baddest of the bad. Why is he always cast as a villain? As is F. Murray Abraham as the Cardinal, who is corrupt to his very core. Jamie Dornan (Will Scarlet), Eve Hewson (Marian) and Jamie Foxx (Little John) were a little meh. But I did like Tim Minchin as Friar Tuck.

To enjoy this movie you have to go into it with the right frame of mind. In other words, disengage your brain and just view it as an adventure film, and nothing more. Go into it with the mindset of Brendan Fraser The Mummy, and you'll be fine. It's not as bad as people say it is. Just don't expect it to be a classic take on the Robin Hood story.

The most helpful thing I can say about this film is that it's not for everyone. If you're a fan of movies like Saw, Hostel, The Nun etc. Chances are you'll hate this film. But if you're a fan of movies like The Blair Witch Project, Annihilation, The Witch and The Babadook, chances are you'll like this one.

Personally, I've got to say this movie has stayed with me. I'm not sure if it frightened me, repulsed me, depressed me or fascinated me? Or a combination of all of these. For me all the lead actors were spot on with their performances. And yeah, granted, after the movie I had to go Googling to find out what it was all about, and about some of the iconography that featured in the film.

If true be told, the story itself isn't that original, or even that clever. But for me is the general mood of the film that makes this something special. As with The Babadook, there is a distinct sinister, creepy, unpleasant melancholic feel to the whole film, and there is no comedic relief to ease the mood. Right from the start you are on a downward spiral into the abyss. And again, if I'm being truthful, chances are you'll be left feeling quite depressed after this film.... But in a good way. If that makes any sense.

For me the final chapter of the movie is its star. Without giving too much away, the whole last section of the movie feels like surreal nightmare. Both fascinating and repellent at the same time.

As I say, not for everybody. There is little in the way of jump scares, gore or even action. There are a few "OMG" moments. But this is a long movie and one you need to put a bit of investment into. Worth a watch.

I was really looking forward to this when I heard it was in development. I don't remember the original series too well, but I liked the 90s movie version. Episode 1 was not too bad and had promise, but all goes downhill from there.

I could forgive the meandering thin story line, the forced political correctness and even the hammy acting. But it's biggest cardinal sin, as far as I'm concerned, is it is soooooooooooo boring. Too many long conversations about nothing. I got as far as episode 6, and for the sake of my sanity, I'm going to have to call it quits.

Fun fact, and maybe the only fun you'll get from this series, the real Dr Smith from whom the fake Dr Smith stole his jacket, was actually Will Robinson from the original series.

But seriously, stir clear of this snooze-fest.

I'd seen the trailer for this movie and thought it looks like a nice tight tense thriller/horror like Open Water and Frozen (no, not the horrible Disney movie). And I like Zoe Kazan, think she is a really under rated actress. On the plus side, the acting and cinematography is not bad at all. But my main problem with this movie is that it didn't know what it wanted to be.

It stated off like a full on melodrama about an alcoholic mother (Kazan) and her pretty damaged daughter, so much so, I started to think I was watching the wrong movie. It then lurched, uneasily into the thriller/horror I assumed it was. The problem being it was not particularly thrilling or horrible. By the time the monster made its appearance, you were pretty emotionally detached from the characters to really care what happened to them. The monster itself was OK, and would have worked better in a tighter, more focused film.

All in all, it's not a terrible movie, it just not a good movie. Sorry to say.

Back in the 80s this would have been heralded as something quite special, and possibly even, cutting edge. Unfortunately, although still entertaining, this is poorly executed and a real missed opportunity.

I've been a fan of the Heavy Metal magazine ever since the early 80s, and although it could be regarded as sexist, misogynistic, puerile and overly graphic, especially today, it still has been the spawning ground for some pretty state-of-the-art stories and artists. The late great Jean (Moebius) Giraud being one of many that were ported over from Metal Hurlant to Heavy Metal.

This is why I find it sad that the Metal Hurlant Chronicles is so bad. The stories are hit and miss, some a lot better than others, the acting verges on laughable and the special effect.... well, some of those are not too bad to be fair.

To be totally honest, the first season was not too bad, and did have some pretty good stories. But the second season.... what the hell happened...!?!?!?!?!? The stories and acting took a nosedive. At the end of most the episodes I sit there thinking "Is that it????!!!!???" No clever twist or sting in the tail. Just a dull end to a dull story. I watched the episode "The Second Son" last night. Truly awful.

So my advice would be: > Switch your mind back to 80s thinking. > Maybe have a beer or 2. > And only watch the first season.

For the sake of nostalgia and that the first season is passable, I'll give it 4 stars.

I've got to say I had quite high expectations of this film after see the cast list. The only good thing I can say about this movie is the acting is OK. And that's about it. It's totally unfunny. Lacks any sort of direction or structures. It seemed to me that it was trying to be a John Hughes film for 2012, and failed on all fronts. But despite the lack of story or humour the very worst thing about this film is that you didn't care about any of the characters. None of them. The 3 mains characters (Kirsten Dunst, Lizzy Caplan and Isla Fisher), are just horrible people. 2 dimensional druggies with terrible attitudes and NO redeeming qualities. And even though I enjoyed Rebel Wilson's performance in Pitch Perfect, I have now come to the conclusion she can't act.

If you are expecting a movie like Brides Maids, forget it. This isn't' it. Just save yourself the heartache and hire Brides Maids again….!!!

To say this is a bad film is just plain wrong. It's not bad at all. Not a classic, but not as bad as everybody is making out.

Where this movie falls down, and where it always was going to fall down, is too many people regard the original as a classic. It doesn't take a genius to work out, if you're going to make a remake/reboot/re-imagining of a movie, don't chose a cult classic. No matter how good your remake, it will always be slated. I don't hold the original in such high regard. Yeah, it was a new take on an old genera, and it had some, then, good effects, and the cinematography was pretty clever, as were all of Sam Raimi's early films. But classic. I think not. I feel the 2nd Evil Dead film was loads better. And as for people slagging this remake off for bad acting…… do you remember the original?

OK. This movie. Yeah it is pretty gory. But wasn't as bad as I was expecting. The general feel to the movie is unpleasant. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, especially for a horror movie. But there wasn't the underlying humour of the original, and moreover its sequel. I think that's where this version fell down a little. Played it a little too straight faced, and therefore was nothing new. In fact that was my biggest problem with the movie. It was nothing new. It had some well- paced set pieces but lacked any real tension and peril. You didn't really care about the characters, so didn't really care much to what happened to them.

On the plus side, I felt the cinematography was pretty good, and added to the underlying "unpleasant" feel of the movie. The effects were good. And yeah, I'd say the acting was OK too. Don't believe all the bad reviews.

All in all, a perfectly watchable horror movie, with some pretty good moments. But a word to the wise. In future don't remake a cult classic. IE. Don't remake the second Evil Dead movie, The Exorcist, The Shining …. Yeah I know they remade it as a TV series, but you get the idea.

I really liked this film… a lot. As with a lot of movies based on life the story weaves about a bit. But I particularly like the way the narrative kept switching between son and farther, giving insights and snippets of past and present life. Very character driven storyline and this movie is a good antidote against the high budget, high gloss, special effect driven Hollywood movies… which I also like, don't get me wrong. But in the words of REM, "sometimes you need something more sub sub sub substantial." Both Robert De Niro and Paul Dano give strong performances, but I do slightly worry that Paul Dano might keep being typecast as the lost creative sensitive type. It was nice to see De Niro in a non-comedic role, which he seems to play recently. And it's a good reminder of here is an actor that can act.

Well worth watching in my opinion. Don't expect the movie to be wrapped up nice and neat at the end. I couldn't see how they would be able to do that without resorting to Hollywood cliché's. I'm still astounded this is by the same director (Paul Weitz), who directed the frighteningly bad Little Fockers.

I'll start by saying I love movies. My philosophy is, if a movie entertains on any level, even unintentionally sometimes, it has achieved what it set out to do. That being said, this is not a very good film at all. I'm not a massive fan of Kevin James, although I did quite like him in Here Comes The Boom. This is an pleasant enough film and OK for family viewing on a very very wet afternoon. The storyline is very predictable. In fact there are yet to be discovered tribes if Africa who could have predicted the story line. The acting is forced and not believable. The jokes are not funny. The only real thing it's got going for it are the talking animals. Amusingly voiced by the likes of Nick Nolte, Stallone, Cher, Jon Favreau, Don Rickles etc. But that's about it. I'm not saying this is a bad movie, just not a good movie either. If you want to see a better movie about a Zoo maybe hire We Bought a Zoo instead.

OK. I had reasonably high expectations of this movie after seeing the trailer. Well, it's OK. That's about it. The story is light but fine, there are a few humorous moments in there, and the characters are OK. But it's a bit of a drag. The special effects are a little hit and miss, and it was all wrapped up a little too neat, tidy and predictably. Another sad fact is that unfortunately Alicia Silverstone, although a babe, is getting a little too old to play these ditsy comedic roles anymore. To me, Dan (Downton Abbey) Stevens, Sigourney Weaver and Wallace Shawn were wasted in this movie. All a bit too lightweight, predictable and run of the mill for me.

To be fair, making a movie about Superman you are never going to please everybody all of the time. The die-hard comic fans will have very specific expectations of the film. Fans of the older Richard Donner/Christopher Reeve incarnation will have differing expectations. So to make a film like this, you'll always be stuck between a rock and a hard place. So to say this movie is bad is just wrong, because it's not. Fans of the comics or the Reeve versions should maybe not go see this movie. It's a Superman for the modern age. Yes it's loud. Yes there is a lot of fast action sequences. Yes the original storyline has been remixed and revamped. And yes, there is a lot of CGI in the movie. So what. It works. People who bang on about the use of CGI in movies; yes I'll agree there are some bad uses of the technology out there. But not in this film. Besides, what would you prefer? A return to rubber monsters, dodgy animatronics and the use of models to simulate everything. I feel people that moan about the use of CGI think you just bang in a few parameters into the sausage machine and hay presto, you have a full blown complex CGI scene fully rendered at the other end. This is not the case, I should know. The process of producing CGI, GOOD CGI, take a lot of time and a lot of artistic and technical knowhow. And in a lot of cases, takes just as long as a more traditional method.

So, the bottom line with Man of Steel is this: It's a great movie. Very exciting. Yeah, it's no Shakespeare or Dickens play, but if you're going excepting that, you are stupid. If you love the comics or the Christopher Reeve version, maybe think about not going to see this one. And if you don't like CGI, Super hero, Science fiction or action movies, then don't go see this movie and then moan about how crap you thought it was afterwards. That's like punching yourself in the face and then complaining about how painful it is. Please…!

Man of Steel. Great movie, would recommend….. with the above provisos.

The Black Angel had quite a profound affect on me, more so than The Empire Strikes Back. I remember the Angel itself as being a fantastic creation, ultra decayed evil, in the same style as Tolkien's Black Riders. I also remember the cinematography was stunning, very dark and moody.

I've been trying to get in touch with Roger Christian about the movie through both Warner Brothers (who didn't want to know), and Stonelock Pictures (company behind his current project, Gilgamesh). I'm still waiting to hear from them. My only other option, I can think of, is to try George Lucas, being as it was originally shown with The Empire Strikes Back and he was involved in funding the project in the first place.

I'll keep you posted chaps. But any help and advice would be gratefully received.

@ndy.

28/7/08 Update

Well I'm pleased to say after years of searching and metaphorically banging on peoples doors, I've had a result, and it really does restore your faith in the power of the internet. I have managed to contact Roger and quizzed him about the film.

Here is the response I got:

Dear Andy, it has touched me as i received many letters like yours at the time it was released with Empire Strikes Back and since then they continue. It was made specifically for the movie as George was upset about the short film with Star Wars. I am trying to find the 35 mm master to convert it, but somewhere in vaults in the Uk there is a beta copy and one day when I return there i will get some DVD's run off. It is interesting really as when it was shown industry people like ?David Putnam hated it and told me i should stop directing, but it was the response from the public who were deeply touched by the film that made me go on as a film maker. I will somehow let everyone know when I do get a DVD copy. all best and thank you again for your kind words. Roger Christian

Now how cool is that :) Roger, you the man...!!!!!

12/3/10 Yet another update.

Thought you might be interested in this interview with Roger which he talks at length about Black Angel, and the possibility or a release.... or not. Roger, please release this in some form..!!! :)

http://www.shadowlocked.com/index.php? option=com_content&view=article&id=134: exclusive-interview-the-worlds- of-roger-christian&catid=47: movie-interviews

I've had to split up the URL a little in order to be able to post it. You'll need to put it back together before visiting the interview page.

31/12/12 The best update yet...!!!!

This is stunning news. The original negatives have been found at Universal, and to quote "Christian is still debating how to share Black Angel with fans...".

More info can be found here: http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/12/20-12-pl_blackangel/

Thanks to David Freeman for the heads up :)

10/01/2014 Another fantastic update thanks to Mark Grey.

According to Wikipedia the movie will be available on Netflix and iTune early this year (2014). Finally :)

20/05/2014 Final update.

At long last this movie is now available on iTunes. Only £1.99 for the HD copy. :) Very happy person...!!!!