igmu Reviews

1917 (2019)

I gave it 5 stars purely for the cinematography...

[5/10 · 13 January 2020]

...but talk about the Emperor's New Clothes. It was on the same level as the recent Dunkirk; looked good but absolutely style over substance. It was WW1 for the videogame generation but without the gore. Episodic; empty landscapes; implausible behaviour and actions from all involved. Plus if you want me to be nitpicky... church bells ringing the hour in a destroyed and inferno town; too many occasional black faces (sorry guys but even in WW2 it didn't happen like that); too many fat soldiers (Daniel Mays, anyone); too many Star Wars Stormtroopers dressed up as Germans (oh wait, perhaps it was their ancestors, errmm descendants) and the Cruel and Evil Hun Pilot! (see Flyboys). Plus a plotline that dragged out Mel Gibson's one and only great performance - in Gallipoli - into a two-hour plod. And what was Mark Strong's warning 'make sure you get witnesses' about. It had absolutely no bearing on the film whatsoever. Unlike Saving Private Ryan or the original Dunkirk, or even Gallipoli, I won't be watching this again. Wish we'd have gone to see Jojo Rabbit instead.

Doctor Who (2005–2022)

Going downhill fast

[4/10 · 21 October 2018]

Three episodes in to the 'new' Doctor Who (Jodie Whittaker) and each one worse than the last. The acting is ok-ish, although the new companions don't get a lot of chance to demonstrate it, but the show is let down by some terrible writing and the need to be so Politically Correct that it can't see beyond the end of its nose.

The show began it's latest decline after Jenna Coleman left Peter Capaldi. Bill and Nardol were very average companions to Capaldi's rather average Doctor - although admittedly Tennant and Smith were hard acts to follow. Then of course the Doctor became female. Absolutely no need for it at all, and no need for all the fuss about it either and it could have worked, but poor Jodie Whittaker has nothing to work with. They writers haven't actually given her a character.

Then there is today's Episode 3 - Rosa Parks. Why? Just make a documentary about her and the segregation issues in 1955 USA instead, not have a very boring episode with no jeopardy and a random unexplained bigoted time-travelling non-villain (oh how so very convenient). Then rub everyone's brains into the dust by ending with the Rosa Parks asteroid - was that all the woman was worth? A bloody asteroid! As a history lesson about Rosa Parks and segregation it didn't work. As an indication of the racism still prevalent in society today it didn't work. As an episode of what has been one of the most enduring and loved sci-fi series on British telly it didn't work. As an example of woolly thinking, abysmal characterisation, poor scriptwriting and bad TV it worked perfectly.

Genevieve (1953)

This should never be shown as 'Entertainment' again.

[1/10 · 13 January 2011]

I saw this film a few times as a young boy forty-odd years ago and quite liked it, mainly because of the old cars, although it was a never a favourite. However, having watched it again today I am shocked at just how horrible it is. The two main characters are plain nasty. Even the supposedly 'nice' one, John Gregson. They are nasty to each other, nasty to their wives/girlfriends, nasty to other motorists, having no regard for anything or anyone outside of their own narrow little world. If this is an example of how England used to be, then it's as a warning of how the upper-middle class Hooray Henrys used to (still do?) behave. Leaving this aside, as a film it's pretty dull and very dated. Even the Oscar-winning harmonica score just keeps grating on and on.

Whimsy? Not a bit of it. Just another example of how bad some of Britain's filmmaking was. There are many better films from this period, so keep this one as a documentary - i.e. this is how Britain looked in the 50s before the car took over, and this is how NOT to behave.

Alternatively, forget all about it. It's really not worth watching.

Flyboys (2006)

Just how many clichés can you get in one film?

[2/10 · 12 March 2008]

There's the fearless farm boy, the sole black pilot, the spoilt rich kid and the fat lad (actually these two are the same character here), the psychologically-challenged one, the religious fanatic, the Frenchman with a funny accent, the token love interest and the cute kids, the young one that gets killed first, the near psychotic older loner who's seen all his friends die and has a personal vendetta against those he holds responsible, the 'good' German but, best of all, the Cruel And Evil Hun! Not to mention the 1950's Hollywood Indians, dressed up to represent the German Army in this case, and nearly every stereotypical war movie dialogue cliché that you can think of.

Add to that really good looking CGI aeroplanes that, however, perform impossible manouevres; a story that's so poorly written that it's flatter than Norfolk; no character development whatsoever; acting so poor that it's laughable (especially James Franco who has the dramatic ability of a spoon); a complete disregard for anything historical about the Lafayette Escadrille except the name, and a complete lack of historical research then you have this terrible mess of a film.

I gave it 2 out of 10 because at least they tried to make a film about a neglected subject, but this film falls so far short of any of its objectives, especially that of being entertaining, that it's as if the last 50 years of film-making had passed the director and crew by without being noticed. It's unfortunately nothing more than a dull 'B' movie.

'Doesn't anybody care that three pilots died today?' Not in this film they don't, and neither will you.

Sexy Beast (2000)

An amazing performance by Ben Kingsley,,,

[5/10 · 4 January 2008]

... can't hide the fact that this is a very poor, boring film. The story is minimal, the sound horrible and, Kingsley aside, the characters undeveloped and listless. The normally excellent Ray Winstone mumbles his way around the few lines that he has (nobody has many, after all) in a permanent daze; his wife and friends are mere cyphers and completely uninteresting, while Ian McShane and James Fox have little more import on the film than a couple of extras.

If you can stand to see Kingsley's frighteningly realistic portrayal of a psychopath then go ahead and watch the film; just don't expect to be entertained (unless you like looking at fat blokes in their swimming trunks -

POSSIBLE SPOILER

double whammy here as even the robbery takes place underwater).

Oh and the relevance of the film's title, 'Sexy Beast'? Absolutely none.

Syriana (2005)

I didn't get it - possible spoilers

[14 September 2007]

I didn't get: ...what George Clooney was doing with the missile and who with...who Jeffrey Wright worked for, what he was doing and why...who Christopher Plummer was...why Matt Damon was doing what he did and who for...who was 'Dalton', and who was the other sacrificial scapegoat...why half of the characters appeared unidentifiable from each other...why George Clooney went back and waved his shirt at Alexander Siddig - did he intend to warn him or get him killed? Plus loads more.

I DID get what the film was about, it was just that I had such a hard time following the story and distinguishing some of the characters, as each segment is very short and nothing really comes together at the end.

All in all, rather a mess, so only 5/10.

Jarhead (2005)

'Full Metal Jacket' for the 90s? I don't think so.

[4/10 · 1 June 2007]

The parallels are obvious for all to see, but especially in the obscenity-bawling drill sergeant. However, where FMJ tried to tell us that 'war is hell' and that it happens to ordinary people, Jarhead merely informs us that, never mind the story, this is a boring film.

I think that a good film could have been made from this book, a film that would really have shown that life in the military, even in a war zone, isn't always about explosions and death. Instead, Mendes treats us to a bunch of - you guessed it - diametrically opposed unsympathetic stereotypes that we neither care for or about. There's the usual good wholesome boy, the geek, the retarded redneck, the one with the shadowy past (he should have joined the Foreign Legion!), the professional, the immigrant, etc, none of whom are distinguishable from each other in the paucity of their character development. Equally lacking is any indication of just what these characters are doing in the USMC in the first place. The excuse for having such a disparate bunch of backgrounds in Vietnam films is conscription. Just why are these guys there? We're never told. All we are left with is the impression, that seems common from films about the US military, that the young American soldier is, without exception, a mentally unstable screaming moron with no professionalism whatsoever. Personally, I don't believe that is true, but that is how the filmmakers portray it.

So, leaving the cast out of the film (Gyllenhaal was good, but then he didn't really have to stretch himself), all we are left with are some pretty camera shots of sunset in the desert.

This purported to be a film about the 'other side' of war, the boring side. Instead we just get a boring film. Unless you were actually there I wouldn't bother with this at all; as a piece of film entertainment it's worthless.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

Entertaining but not brilliant.

[7/10 · 17 May 2007]

This film starts off being very confusing, but if you stick with it it does become clearer. Kate Winslet and Kirsten Dunst give good performances, Tom Wilkinson is hardly used and almost on autopilot, and Jim Carrey? The jury's out, but not terrible, merely average I think.

The ending was pretty lame; it was rather obvious from the start what was going to happen, just to what degree.

Definitely not worthy of the IMDb top 50, but also definitely worthy of a look. Rent the DVD and make your own mind up. I've now run out of things to say about it, that's all the inspiration that it gave me. Is it ten lines yet?

Comrade Dad (1984–1986)

Pretty dismal

[1/10 · 2 February 2007]

I remember this series chiefly for two things.

1. The Russian government got quite upset about them being likely to invade Britain in 1986. 2. Some lame punchline about asking for the wishbone of a chicken said by the young lad who had, in fact, never seen one before and wouldn't have known what it was.

The series wasn't funny, although it might have been in the 50s, had it been made thirty years earlier. Even the great George Cole couldn't save it and it was quickly shelved.

Apparently I haven't submitted enough lines (Preview) but there's nothing else to say. It's to my great regret that I actually remember this show and bothered to look it up.

The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)

Mildly entertaining fluff

[4/10 · 15 November 2006]

Great cast; shame about the film. The premise shows potential. Dysfunctional family deserted years before by their father who now wants to worm his way back in. Unfortunately the writing is so limp and the characters so underdeveloped that after twenty minutes you won't care at all about what's going to happen to any of them. Angelica Huston, Bill Murray and Danny Glover have bit parts so inconsequential that their roles could almost have been assigned to extras; of the Tenenbaum children only Luke Wilson's ex-tennis champ character holds any interest at all. Gwyneth Paltrow is at her most two-dimensional (not her fault, blame the script this time), Ben Stiller is completely wasted in his role and the less said about Owen Wilson's part and lack of acting talent the better. The film's only saving grace is Gene Hackman who is on top form and steals every scene that he is in - which is most of them.

SPOILERS

However, the plot device of him pretending to be terminally ill is done away with far too quickly, wasting a lot of comic and dramatic potential, and of course he conveniently dies at the end when no-one (except everybody that watches clichéd films like this) expects it.

Also, what's with the title? Why is Hackman named 'Royal' other than to jazz up the film's name? It's never explained; personally I think that calling a film 'The Tenenbaums' would have had less appeal than one with a possible regal attachment, although it would have been more honest. The same association was used to much better effect in the UK sitcom 'The Royle Family', as the lives of the characters portrayed there are as far removed from those of the monarchy as can be. With the USA having no Royal Family what are we supposed to make of it all? Yet again, weak writing.

So, to sum up, not really worth bothering with unless you are a die-hard Gene Hackman fan, and even if then I think you'd be better off watching paint dry.

Battle of Britain (1969)

Such a pity

[5/10 · 31 October 2006]

Let me first say that I am and always have been an aircraft nut; especially WWII. I first saw this film on release at my local premiere in Margate, where, as an Air Cadet, I was privileged to be part of the Guard of Honour for several of the real Battle of Britain pilots including Robert Stanford Tuck.

Even then, as a less than critical 14-year old, there were certain parts of the film that were obviously very poor. Now, as a highly critical grumpy old man(!) I still see them. Seeing Spitfires and Hurricanes still thrills me, and a lot of the aerial scenes in the film are of the highest order, so what's wrong with it?

The story or lack of - very piecemeal and unevenly paced. Susannah York's hairstyle - so out of place for 1940. The Christopher Plummer - Susannah York romance. Susannah York in her entirety; some of the worst acting in a film riddled with it. The obvious model Stukas and anything else that needed to be destroyed. The actors. Some of Britain's finest but all way too old for fighter pilots. (Michael Caine -37; Christopher Plummer -40; Robert Shaw -42; Barry Foster -48; Edward Fox -31.) Even Ian McShane who was only 27 would have been an old man to the rest of the pilots. The Battle of Britain was fought in the air by boys - on both sides.

It is all such a pity because although today's technology could improve the effects a thousand-fold they will never get such an armada of aircraft together again, even though, paradoxically, there are now many more airworthy Spitfires and Hurricanes than there were in 1969. Any future Battle of Britain film will be made mainly with CGI. They had one chance to make an outstanding film comemmorating the people and aircraft that took part in one of Britain's defining moments of the 20th Century and they blew it.

Shame. Great shots of wonderful aircraft but as a historical portrayal or film entertainment - forget it.

Doctor in the House (1954)

Sadly, I never found this film funny.

[4/10 · 6 June 2006]

Even thirty odd years ago when I first saw it. I tried and tried, but 'What's the bleeding time?' wasn't funny to an adolescent in the 60s, and the script hasn't improved with age. I even read the 'Doctor' books to see what it was all about, and they left me cold too. Having said that though, it usually gets a look-see whenever it appears on the box (this afternoon for example), just for the quality of the cast and a look at the fifties; and to remind myself of the crush I had on Muriel Pavlow.

It really isn't a relevant film any more, other than as a historical document of Britain as it was and of some of the finest British actors of the period.

It will be on TV again in a few months I suspect, and I also expect that I'll catch a few minutes of it then, if I can. 4/10.

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

Drivel

[1/10 · 29 January 2006]

I don't give up on many films but this was one of them. Most of what I want to say has already been written but

-the rave scene (hideous) -Zion (boring) -Morpheus (pretentious, dull crappy speeches) -the fight with the Smiths (so obviously CGI) -the fight on the truck (boring) -any amount of irrelevant and unexplained characters -overuse of slo-mo (again and again and again) -all this is a cinema release of a computer game

plus loads more, are enough reasons never to go near this film again. The Matrix was OK and made me want to see this. I so wish it hadn't. Avoid like the plague.

Cold Mountain (2003)

Definitely worth a look.

[8/10 · 18 January 2006]

I haven't seen this film for about a year, but something brought it to mind. I decided to browse the comments here and am most surprised, especially by some of the negative ones.

Two of the most laughable are that a) Jude Law's acting performance was very wooden and b) there are two many non-American actors in the film.

a) Jude Law IS one of the most wooden actors ever, and in my view is normally dreadful in all that he does. However, in this film his character, Inman, is one of the most dull individuals ever realised on film, and Law is ideally cast as the shy, boring, monosyllabic carpenter. He fitted the role perfectly.

b) What the critics who moan about the use of non-American actors forget is that the USA is a land of immigrants, and that the likelihood of people speaking with a not quite perfect 'southern' accent was very high in the melting pot of the 19th century. Granted, I don't suppose that there were too many Australian immigrants ;), but that shouldn't be held against Ms Kidman who does a fine job with most parts that she takes on.

The film itself? It is not the greatest thing since sliced bread that some people believe, neither is it the boring rubbish described by others. I found it an engrossing story that, although episodic, held my attention for the whole two and a half hours. The story was well told and visually it looked good; the only reservation I have is that of the character played by Ray Winstone, which grated somewhat.

Overall, well worth seeing. 8/10.

102 Dalmatians (2000)

I don't know what to say...

[1/10 · 2 January 2006]

...because this was simply awful. 101 Dalamatians was funny even if formulaic, but this is nothing more than puerile drivel. The same plot except with the story excised from it; the world's most intelligent and horribly annoying macaw; Tim McInnerny proving that he really can't do comedy (everone remembers Percy in Blackadder but that was his high spot - it's all been downhill since then); direction so poor that if a group of college students had made this you'd throw it in the bin and tell them to do it again - properly this time. Ieuan Grufford better go back to Hornblower sharpish, whilst Glenn Close and Gerard Diepardieu ought to go into hiding for several years.

Perhaps I could be too harsh; after all I didn't manage to sit through the whole film. It gets 1/10; only because I can't give it 0.

Minority Report (2002)

OK for a rainy afternoon

[5/10 · 29 December 2005]

Definitely not one of the best sci-fi films. Apart from the basic premise it was extremely derivative - if it had included aliens you could have laid money on them being 'little green men'. It has all of the trademark Spielberg traits, including an enormous dose of sentimental schmaltz and appalling sound. Why is it that he thinks that we should have to struggle to make out what the characters are saying?

That said it wasn't a 'bad' film; just clichéd with some glaring plot holes and a 'hidden' villain who was identifiable in the first ten minutes. Tom Cruise didn't do too badly with the part, but then he is at his best with vapid 'techie' action heroes. Think 'Mission Impossible' - it's the same character.

Don't bother paying money to see this - it's only worth watching on the TV when it's free. 5/10.

The Pillow Book (1995)

Terrible.

[1/10 · 8 December 2005]

Visually cluttered, plot less, incredibly mind-numbing rubbish. Not even close to Greenaway's better work. Avoid at all costs!

The overlapping 'split screen' effects do nothing more than confuse, the film is very dark for a lot of the time and the 'artistic' composing of images is pretentious in the extreme.

There is absolutely nothing to recommend about this film; even the nudity is incredibly unerotic, which seeing it fills a large part of the film soon gets very boring.

Plus, how anyone can say that the acting of Ewen MacGregor is brilliant is beyond me. He showed more ability in the Star Wars series, and that's saying something.

I've not been so unimpressed with a film since I saw 'Darby O'Gill and the Little People'!