benrostul

This is from a short story, written by I thought Robert Bloch, but I can't find it in his works. In the short story the revelation, if that's the right word, about the things people see in their re-created memories are everyday things from Before, like a walk in the park with the kids. But it is from another writer's material, a story that I remember well, and that writer ought to be credited (and possibly even paid, though I expect it would go to their estate). It's quite an old story, from my youth when I read a lot of science fiction, so we're talking 60's. I don't have any more to say about it as a film, except that no-one is especially watchable in it, and it has no major points of interest, even though the cgi of the existing world is quite good. It reads like a script where the writer forgot the origin of the material and re-wrote it. The original story had a nice note of melancholy in it. This one doesn't, it's been replaced by a rather weak criminal story which is of little interest. Pity about the missing original writer, the story's worth reading.

This is one of those insane productions that ought to end the career of everyone involved. It has some careless production details as well - the cottage Bale lives in is a long ride away from the camp, yet Melling visits him in a cottage at the camp, where he clearly lives, as his books are there. And I didn't check, as it was too much work, but he's been a widow for three years and then for two? Good acting, but as the script and everything about it is barking mad, not a lot of point. But I don't suppose it will hurt anyone involved - the standard of madness and badness is Ishtar, and as one of the critics said, the makers of this will be back. Whether they were or not I don't know, but audiences deserve better than this piece of make-believe. Oh yeah - what on earth was Robert Duvall doing in this? And I forgot - the Captain gets a promotion to Colonel in the last minute or so. It's slightly sloppy work.

This is just great. Loads of action, the dialogue does the job, and it's got an emotional line as well. Plus ugly dribbling monsters. What's not to like? Hugely entertaining. And here I am wqriting another couple of hundred extra characters all of which are redundant. Watch this, sit back, and enjoy. And I'm still short of the stupid overlong review quota. I need to write another couple of hundred, but you the reader do not need to read them as they are superfluous. All I needed to say was great film watch it. I really don't see why IMDB, a visual medium, needs lots of words to say how great a film is.

Like Gordon 11 below I lasted about 15 minutes and gave up, bored out of my mind. Which is quite an achievement in film terms. I suppose the nearest equivalent is the risible recent talking-to-camera Persuasion which I think is a Prime production. (see Persuasion with Sally Hawkins to see one that works) But it does make clear why film distributors can tell how a film will sell by seeing the first few minutes. These opening minutes lack everything you'd want a film to have: purpose, drama, human interest, passion, perhaps mystery - and a future. And here's me adding another forty-nine characters ...

It's not Shakespeare but it's very good tv. The writers add on incident after incident and never keep anything still, which is what action tv should be about. They take one incident and ramp it up. I loved it. And I cared about characters as well. The acting is fine, I believed what they were doing. Happy ending too. What more could anyone want? I'm now supposed to add another 253 characters but I've said all that's necessary so that's really irritating and a bit of IMDB bureaucracy where I don't want it and now I think I'm done. No the office people want another 65 characters. Proof positive they don't really have any idea...

I don't understand how any director or producer could have a car blown up in a multi-level car-park and the have that same cae on the highway later for the police to find. . Did they not notice? Does this film have two directors who don't talk to eah other? Was there no editor? It's on a par with the broken leg changing from left to right. It's amateur-land. The script is by the numbers as well. Cliched and careless. A shame too. Looks like both Guy Pearce and Liam Neeson took the money and ran. And this reviewer number cruncher can't count either It wasnt 600 characters and thinks I haven't written tyhem...

It's a pile of Cringe-Ready Absolute Piffle. It opens with a good-looking Anne Elliot smirking into the camera. So it clearly doesn't know cameras weren't that common in early 19th century England and to act as if they were is simply silly. No other words for it, apart from, well, Lack Of Dramatic Judgement. Period needs to be played straight and real, other wise it just falls over. We can't enjoy the (historicaL) moment. Arch is the word for Anne's behaviour. Ron Bass is a well-respected and experienced scriptwriter, so either he was having a Bad Writing Half Hour or someone paid him shedloads to be daft and he trousered it along with his I hope better notions. I'll watch the remaining 90 minutes or so, but I doubt whether it'll get any better as the premise is skewed. The Persuasion of a decade ago plays the work in a straightforward way and apart from a missing bit of evidence - Anne's common-sense and practical knowledge, not really seen - is considerably better, played with real feeling. Where do these producers get their ideas? It's Barbie in Big Frocks.

And 90 minutes later I've seen the whole thing and it's got worse. But now, added to the bad production ideas is the indifferent and bad acting. The actor playing Wentworth... has done some acting before... And it's the director's first film.... It would've been nice to see some dramatic turning points for the characters, like in, well, you know, proper drama... but there aren't any. Must rank as the worst Jane Austen adaptation ever, largely because Jane Austen's work is essentially dramatic and the adapting team forgot to link their work to hers. All the other book adaptations work without fail. This one flops. And does Anne pee up against a tree? Or have a suggestive sexy remark in not knowing where her "bushel" is ? Apparently there's another Persuasion on the way. I'll watch that and see if they get it right - which means - am I moved? Do the characters seem real? Here's hoping.

I remember reading that Ridley Scott filmed Gladiator without a script. And here he's done it again. The second half is definitely cut-your-own-throat from boredom time. Perhaps the problem is that Mr Scott takes on too much? If you look at his work on IMDB he can only have a couple of weeks per production...

It's not a patch on the 1994 Gillian Armstrong version. I've yet to read the book, so I can't comment on its accuracy, but my main comment would be that it has no calm centre. It has a couple of emotional moments, though those are somewhat contrived and I tend to regard those as a cheat - and directed rather conventionally. But it somehow lacks a real believable life - it's a film of performances, and some miscasting. Emma Watson would've been better as Amy, the pretty one, for example. Neither does it have any sense of economic reality - the Marches are supposed to be poor, but the house and the frocks really belie that. Apparently the 1949 version is the one to beat, but I haven't seen that either. I think what is interesting about the book and its film adaptations is that, like Shakespeare, they arouse so much emotion in the viewer from the point of view of a deep desire to be moved and satisfied.

I watched some on fast-forward, so that made it shorter. This is the film that could perhaps end the franchise. Dull. It's just dull. I have to say more as I haven't written 150 characters. It's still dull.

One of the things scriptwriters need to know is how the real world works. In this case the sacking of the main character, Martin Pyrite, is completely unbelievable. No business would ever act this way, they'd be sued and would be bound to lose. The poor quality and unreality of that event taints the rest of the film, and I could only watch intermittently. I only watched in the first place to see Neve Campbell, an interesting actress. She's not in it much and again that gives the film away. A well-known actress paid a lot for a small amount of work - it's window-dressing - to get the film off the ground. One to avoid.

Brain dead. Films like this have a psychopathic quality that removes any trace of what the original art in the comic may have had. It has little style.

Why? I'm told I have to write 150 characters as a review or I can't submit it, so Why isn't enough.. WHY Oh Why Oh Why Oh Why Oh Why Oh Why did anyone think this was a film worth making? It's fake - there, that's a reviewy bit. And it lacks... what's the word, can't think, wait wait - Yes. Got.it. Drama. I was given to understand drama in a play was always a good thing. Soft porn in a library lacks that certain dramatic quality. Possibly in a public library with policemen rushing in with full sirens and covering up body parts with their helmets in time-honoured cricket fashion, that might've made for a scene... Money. They spent money on this.

I watched this all the way through, as I'm recovering from a lung infection and can't move about much. It went on and on, with just about every current problem getting a line or two, and then it ended. It had a cast of thousands, so it gave work to lots of extras. It was well-acted, but it was also completely pointless. Good to see Saskia Reeves, also in Us, one day after another. I also think the Chinese actor was in Us, but I haven't checked.

It had to be the money. It's hard to see why Ford and Oldman, and a class actor like Embeth Davidtz, always watchable, would decide to be in such an astonishingly bad film. The script is bad, the direction is bad. It's fundamentally silly in how it plays out. Actors had to have read the script first, surely? So it had to be the money. But there's also something disturbing in garbage like this, apart from the lack of professional pride in box-office actors - it treats technology as magic. The mobile phone is the real star, but it's been changed into an evil wizard, something out of our control. Although Paranoia is the title, the real title should be something like Psychotic. "They're always listening" I think Hemsworth says. There might have been an idea here once, but it got murdered early on.

I don't understand why this film got any bad reviews. It's well-acted, well-written, the dialogue sings and some of it is laugh out loud funny. It's also moving, and here and there, oddly beautiful, and I never thought I'd say that about a sci-fi film after Blade Runner. The performances are faultless, and young Adam is an actor to watch. Not all Ryan Reynolds films work, but this one does. Terrific stuff.

The story's so simple and so human. It's one of no events whatsoever but it grips from the start. This is one of four on an Ealing Rarities collection, Vol 11, and it's worth the cost for this alone. I'd just finished being bored to tears by Avengers Assemble (I'd not seen that in the cinema) and then decided to put this on. Donat's never been better. The script, By Eric Ambler, is beautifully structured. It's also a fast film, it never lags, because every scene is useful and does real work. It's impassioned as well. Don't miss this one. In colour. And you can see the location, Lund in Yorkshire, hasn't changed that much. The pub's still there as is the church.

Brosnan is always watchable, and it's good to see his work level is up so much with lots of work ahead.,He's become a Go-To actor for older roles and has the stature and presence for it. I always watch his stuff. This film is a reasonable idea and for the first 15 minutes looks promising. Then the script fails, the direction's not sharp enough, acting is rather lackadaisical, with even Brosnan doing some peculiar mouth movements, and it becomes embarrassing for everybody. It is, unfortunately, the kind of film that Prime has so often on its site. The reason is, I was told by a producer friend, that they don't buy them up-front. They pay per view. This is a Prime Exclusive, presumably because no-one else wanted it. There's also lots of sand, like another more recent and far more expensive dud. Perhaps sand in the script should come with a trigger warning.

A fine example of how to turn 96 minutes into, well, something that feels like a week-long viewing experience. Even watching it of fast forward - because you can see nothing's happening - doesn't help much.

You get to see a few scenes with Paris in, but at 1.99 (reduced price) on Amazon Prime this is 1.98 too much. They probably paid a couple of quid for it though, so they're probably in profit. Affected, uninvolving, a mediocre script and the characters dead on their feet before what may be a suicide attempt from Michelle Pfeiffer's character. But by that time you don't care anyway. Don't waste your money or your time. It's a vanity project with precious little to be vain about. And as for the Paris scenes - watch Emily in Paris, it's got a lot more life. It's about a woman who expected to be dead before the money ran out and all I can say is it's a pity she didn't manage that. They don't make films like this any more and we should all give thanks for that. It'd be a bomb if the fuse had been alight to start with.

This is a film where several top-rated Hollywood actors show their wisdom of the world for our benefit. Problem is, if almost every scene is about profoundly irritating people, you end up with a profoundly irritating film. Satire's hard. It almost never works. Real is better. Real has a grip that can't be beaten.

So bad it can't be reviewed.But I have to write more as just saying this isn't enough for IMBD. This film is a disgrace to film-making.

No humour, just death and viciousness. Always a bad sign, so I stopped after ep 4. People laugh, even in the middle of adversity. It simply leads to bad work, and the fault is the story-tellers.

The script, written by committee, is poor; the direction, performed in tandem, echoes that. And it's stupid. I suspect the intended audience is 8-year olds, but even so, the very odd finger-print entry into the locked room is dumb. Samuel Jackson, (with weird face), uses his own thumb, i.e a real thumb on his real hand, to try to open a locked door. He fails. He then seems to take a COPY of HIS OWN THUMB PRINT from an id card on a piece of Sellotape, and puts that on the same door-opener, and lo! it works! Did I miss something? Only my cash payment, perhaps. Save your money.

Rubbish. Total rubbish. An over-complicated script, full of coincidences. A normal-looking man takes his face off and puts it back again and looks completely normal again. It's bollocks, if I can say bollocks on IMDB. People have said Claire Foy does a good job, and she does - but it would've been better if she'd read the script properly first and turned it down.