Reviews

Having seen the Russian series Ekaterina (2014), I was completely disappointed by this one. They don't come even close to the historic reality, or the deeper sense of the life of this great woman.

No vote. Just pity.

This is a remake of La sirène du Mississipi (1969) with stronger sex scenes. I think the original was better, however, this one is not bad either. Banderas and Jolie are good in their roles and the film is recommendable.

My vote 6/10.

18 episodes of 50 minutes each in order to show a b-movie of no more than maximum 80 minutes. Pointless extensive nudity and continuous mostly unnecessary flashbacks, which all the time interrupt the anyway poor and story, fill the rest of this rather boring series. I wouldn't recommend it at all.

My vote 3/10.

I like Spanish cinema and I have seen many Spanish films and tv series. This one is a disappointment. A dull, very slow thence boring film without any special meaning or interest. My advice is avoid it.

My vote: 1/10.

PS: There is no horror in the film.

The film is too long, without any particular mystery/action, or something that could keep my interest, so I got tired. Julianne Moore was excellent and so was Samuel L. Jackson, but they couldn't save a lost film. I'd advise to avoid it.

My vote: 2/10.

Having seen Sword of the Valiant: The Legend of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (1984) years ago, which I liked, I thought I would see a similar, or the same Arthurian story, may be told and screened differently. What I saw was a very slow and boring film, with a lot of dialogues, which I really didn't get. I could hardly keep my eyes open and eventually I gave it up after 80 minutes or so.

In addition, I didn't like the main character and not only. IMHO, he didn't feet in the role. The only thing I can recommend is keep off.

My vote: 2/10.

I've so far watched 3 episodes of this series, but I don't think I will watch anymore. I don't know why the name of Sherlock Holmes is involved in so many other reviews; however, Conan Doyle's hero has nothing to do with this dull, uninspired, lifeless and boring series. I don't know what the makers had in mind shutting this cabbage.

My vote 3/10 just for the decor and the costumes.

I see that one or two reviewers compare the film with Kubrick's The Shining (1980). Far from that. "The shining" had a meaning, was understandable, not like this mess, which no one can tell what it exactly was. Slow paced, half in the dark, the film let you guess whatever you want and explain it your way, if you can explain anything. Yes, beautiful nature, but that's all. As to the rest, just ask the writers and the director to tell you what they had in mind making this crap, if they had anything. My advice, avoid it thus saving time and eventually money.

My vote: 1/10.

I like the action films and I like Liam Neeson very much. Having seen other action films with him (e.g. "Taken") I had hoped to see something far better and more interesting than what I saw. I'm disappointed. The action is rather limited and the rest of the film rather boring. Nevertheless, one can give it a try, if there is nothing better to see/do.

My vote: 4/10.

Horror? What horror? It's difficult to find a more boring and meaning les nonsense. Avoid by all means that one, otherwise you will regret for having wasted 97 minutes of your life.

My vote: 1/10, because I cannot give less.

This film is an insult to Hugo's masterpiece. They shouldn't even have tried to film it in a 134 minutes movie. Hugo's bones certainly crackle in his grave.

My vote 1/10.

What did I watch? What was it about? It's an incomprehensible, tiring mess, unbearably boring, especially towards the end. I wished I could see any meaning in this crap.

My vote: 1/10.

It's a rather simple but enjoyable action film. I spent about two pleasant hours last night.

My vote 5/10.

I read many complaints about propaganda, Canadian people defamation and so on. Apart from the fact that this episode is interesting and worth watching, I would advise the "offended" Canadians to get informed about The 1918 Toronto anti-Greek riot (Wikipedia). Probably, the writer was inspired by it.

Unfortunately, it's the last one of this excellent series :(

A very predictable let's say ... thriller (?). It has its moments, but it's rather boring and uninteresting.

My vote 2/10.

If you are looking for action, just forget it. There isn't any. Most of the film is uninteresting chatter. It is very slow paced and terribly boring film.

My recommendation: Skip it.

My vote: 1/10.

I have always been a Seagal fan and I've seen almost all of his good and not so good films. I thank him for the pleasurable time he gave to me for so many years. Now I am sad to see his films justifiably voted 1/10 and 2/10. The good years have passed and Steven should have stopped appearing (he is not acting!) in films in order to keep the good memory to his fans, instead of becoming ridiculous. Steven, stop here! Let us remember you as a legend of martial arts as you used to be. PLEASE!

While the first two parts, directed by the great Mario Monicelli, are two of the best comedies I've seen so far, this one is rather a depressing nonsense. I had to give it up after 40 minutes or so, not wanting to destroy the excellent remembrance of the part one and part two. Imho it shouldn't have been ever shut.

My vote: 2/10.

I still wonder where the horror and the mystery are. I saw this garbage last night and still cannot understand why I didn't give it up halfway. It's a terribly slow, boring and without meaning crap. Honestly speaking, I cannot understand what the director aimed to. I like Nicolas Cage and I was sorry to see him in that.

My vote: 1/10.

The film is described as a thriller. I saw it last night and still wonder where the thriller was. What I saw was a sort of comedy of bad taste and I feel sorry for the actors Sophia Loren, Marcello Mastroianni and Giancarlo Giannini who were in such a nonsense.

My vote: 1/10.

127 minutes of my life I'll never get back. I don't know what writers and director were thinking when making such a nonsense, but the message they wanted to send is so naïve and clumsy that the whole is turning to a laughable farce. Slow, boring and full of unnecessary and stupid dialogs in order to fill a 127 min. Film that could end in less than 40'.

My vote: 2/10.

I am a fan of action films and I gave a 5/10 to John Wick (2014). Then I saw the Chapter 2, to which I gave a 2/10. This one, the Chapter 3, is pure nonsense. Action for the action and again action without ending and meaning. I hope there will not be a Chapter 4. Messrs. Stahelski and Reeves should know where to stop, before they become completely ridiculous.

My vote: 2/10 (again), although it should be rather less.

I liked this film very much. One shouldn't compare it with Collateral (2004), because of a superfluous similarity. The two films are very different. "One Night in Bangkok" is more than a thriller and/or an action film. It's of deeper sense, with nice dialogues, well written story, good acting, especially by Mark Dacascos, emotion and of course some action, although one shouldn't focus to that.

I do recommend it.

My vote: 7/10.

I saw this film last night and I liked it. I will not bother you with a long and unnecessary review, like the ones I hate myself so much. You can read in the summary what the film is about. I emphasize on the good direction and acting and the interesting plot, which kept me alert from the beginning to the end. I do recommend the film.

My vote is 7/10.