marknbkk

I love Bob Hope's early films, but from the mid-50s onwards they just became rubbish.

This one is rubbish, rubbish, rubbish. The ridiculous nature of the film is highlighted by the interminable helicopter scene - as Hope's character said himself, "If I saw this in pictures I wouldn't believe it."

With the exception of Fernandel, the film's actors were strong - it was the script that stank. How anyone could have been attracted to contribute finances to the production based on the lame-brain script is beyond me.

NEWSFLASH!! 1917 is nothing more than just another movie. It's an amalgam of the marathon legend born from the Ancient Greeks' battle against the Persians - and a script born from a 12-year-old boy's daydreaming fantasy of being a hero by defying all odds. It's all wrapped up into a format akin to a non-interactive video game. It's a 6/10 from me, and I'm being quite generous at that!!

I settled down for a Netflix night and found 'Marley and Me', a cutesy story of a man and his dog. I like Owen Wilson's acting, I am besotted by Jennifer Aniston acting or not, I enjoy romantic comedies and I love dogs - what could go wrong?? One thing I didn't take into account was my dislike of stupid ill-disciplined dogs, with that dislike being only eclipsed by STUPID dog owners who are so stupid they don't discipline their dogs, allow them to incessantly cause mayhem, and consequently allow their dogs to train them. As such, I found the two protagonists played by Owen and Jennifer nauseatingly annoying and the film almost unbearable - however, if you like Owen Wilson, Jennifer Aniston and soppy story lines, and you don't dislike stupid ill- disciplined dogs and their STUPID owners, this will undoubtedly be a good film for you. (But it wasn't for me!!!) A very lowly 3 out of 10 from me.

One of the most stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid story lines ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If not for the absolutely gorgeous Lucy Liu I would have turned the movie off in a jiff once I saw Bruce Willis' name in the opening credits. It's not that I think he is any worse an actor than the next bloke, but it's just the movies he 'acts' in.

But did I mention Lucy Liu?? Gorgeous!!

The story is just so incredibly ludicrous - like a rambling constructive fantasy of a 12 year old boy.

Give this one a wide birth. But I tell you what, that Lucy Liu is something else.

I'm currently deployed overseas and have a fair bit of down time at night - if I was in any way busy this evening there's no way I would have stuck around to watch the film through to the end.

The film portrays Johnny Cash as a weak and pathetic individual, bereft of any redeeming features. From what I've read of him, the film portrays the character accurately - the type of character I genuinely dislike, hence I suppose why I didn't enjoy the film. I could see nothing uplifting in the story - at all. He seemed to be a poison to all he had close contact with and his lack of strength led him to succumb to all temptations. If not for his musical talent and consequent wealth, he would have been an even more lonely man.

I love his music, but not the man that sings it - nor the film about the man.

Joaquin Phoenix is very strong in the role and his depiction of Cash's voice is excellent - in fact, his voice is 'too excellent', and considerably better than the true Johnny Cash. You see, I think a real charm of Johnny Cash was that his success belied his singing talent. His acting skills were great and his living of the ballads were most convincing - the anger borne from frustration and desertion of the boy named Sue, and only the Lord knows why that boy took his guns to town.

But don't get me wrong, I still love The Man in Black's music and have many of his albums. But just because a person can sing and entertain does not mean he is a good man, nor does it mean we should just blindly accept all his weaknesses.

I'm sorry, but I've really got to roll my sleeves up on this one - and it's not because it's a chick flick, or as I prefer to describe, a sheila's movie (I have been known to enjoy the odd one of them over the years), it's just because it's a bloody awful movie.

Now I've always been of the opinion that 99 out of a hundred people can act, it's not that hard and it's basically actors' looks that get them through. Well, if that is the case, then Aussie soap opera's Christopher Egan is that one in a hundred who can't act. (As an Australian I am able to make the observation that his remarkable lack of acting ability put him in very good stead to be cast for Australian TV soaps - and he was.)

Egan's upper class English accent playing the male protagonist Charlie reminded me very much of Lee Evans playing Tucker in Something About Mary - and Tucker was meant to come across as a fake. If anything, Charlie's accent fell well short of Tucker's in authenticity, but unlike the character of Tucker whose accent was funny, Charlie's accent was just plain laughable.

However, to be brutally frank, I don't think the accent detracted from Egan's performance, because in all other facets, that was just plain nauseating. It was just sooooooooo unconvincing that it inflicted a mortal wound for the movie. If the producers had cast one of the 99% of the world's male population who was suitably aged, suitably handsome and who could act, the movie may have otherwise clawed itself up to have been fairly described as mediocre. Unfortunately, it was impossible for the story to recover from this miscasting blunder.

Again to be frank, I believe that the only way Christopher Egan could have been more miscast was if he was given the role of Claire, played of course by Vanessa Redgrave. However, I reckon Egan could have actually done a better job of playing Sophie than what he did of portraying Charlie.

Beautiful scenery and reasonable acting by the two female stars (as I say, who can't act?), the storyline is clichéd and consequently extremely predictable.

It's one of those movies that I could not possibly have sat through, but for the fact I was reading a book at the same time. Overall: I give it an "Uggghhhhhhhh" rating - 4/10; and the producers should think themselves bloody well lucky I even scored it at that!

Unquestionably one of the very worst movies I've ever seen. I must be candid though - I'm pretty quick at tapping the stop button on movies I consider junk. But the storyline got me in - the fact there was none!! I stuck it out thinking that at some stage something interesting was sure to happen - it didn't. (I'm still annoyed with myself that I wasted such a significant portion of my life to this movie!) After yet another boring irrelevant scene it went to the credits. I thought I must of missed something - I rewound - missed something? I hadn't. Nothing wrong with the acting - just bloody awful story. Like watching a normal family - BORING!!!