Change Your Image
smoore-39
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Spartacus: Blood and Sand (2010)
Low budget soft porn
Almost devoid of merit - only worth viewing if you are turned on by well-oiled body builders.
The problems are many: far too low-budget to pull off the visuals (the cheap CGI backdrops are particularly poor), uninteresting plot, banal dialogue, lots of appalling acting from a group of body builders and soft porn actresses. Even the action is of questionable merit - the fighting is straight out of a pulp comic book. I'm disappointed because I first watched the prequel and found it to be quite good. The gods only know how this series managed to make it beyond the pilot. It is only redeemed for TV mediocrity by a reasonably characterful John Hannah.
The Avengers (2012)
Just another superhero movie
I had expected more from Joss Whedan, but The Avengers (a.k.a Marvel's Avengers, a.k.a Marvel Avengers Assemble and various other permutations of this terrible title) is just another superhero movie: dull and hackneyed plot, poor characterisation, lots of fighting. It provides plenty for its pre-teen/early-teenage male target audience - great special effects, no romance and a very lengthy battle sequence at the end - but doesn't offer enough to adults to sustain interest for its 140-minute length. It is only saved from mediocrity by two factors: the humour in the script and Robert Downey's performance. I also credit Tom Hiddleston's performance as Loki, but the of the cast generally fail to shine. Even Samuel L. Jackson cannot make a real character out of the bizarre administrator/soldier hybrid that is Nick Fury.
The Woman in Black (2012)
Expect nothing more than you would from an average Hammer Horror from the 60s
I naively expected that a Hammer Horror film from the 21st century would be a step up from the low-budget affairs that bore this brand in the 1960s and 70s. While the film clearly has access to a larger budget than its predecessors it is essentially no better than an average vintage Hammer Horror.
Where Woman in Black differs in a positive way from earlier Hammer Horrors is in the relative authenticity of its period detail - it looks like a good quality BBC costume drama. I wrote "relative" because in one fundamental way is lacks authenticity to such an extent that I soon lost my ability to suspend disbelief - it is set in an isolated community in the north east of England, and yet judging by the accents of the villagers this is the one of the most multicultural isolated villages in the land. One of the main characters, a local landowner, speaks in an Irish accent for some inexplicable reason (yes, I know that the actor is Irish but he put on a good RP English accent when playing Julius Caesar in the Rome TV series). Perhaps I should also add that, accents notwithstanding, the quality of the supporting cast is quite high.
Where Woman in black very much follows on from the B-movie Hammer Horrors of the mid-twentieth century is in its formulaic approach to creating suspense and horror: very annoying use of loud noises as a cue for you when you should be scared, a mad and ugly villainess, villagers taken straight from Frankenstein etc.
And, finally, where the film fails to match up with Hammer classics is in the rather modest acting skills of its lead - Daniel Radcliffe still strikes me as having made his way to international stardom purely on the basis of looking like Harry Potter. Radcliffe's performance in Woman in Black is not bad. Indeed it is competent. But that is not good enough for a film with a very simple plot that unravels so slowly that whole minutes elapse with nothing more to entertain you than the visuals.
Genius of Britain: The Scientists Who Changed the World (2010)
Propaganda for science aimed at a British audience
The first person to review this series has already presented a good summary and addressed many of the points I would have raised myself. So I'll be brief. I believe that the focus on British scientists was due to one of the aims of the series being to popularize science (and engineering) in Britain. The title itself - Genius of Britain - clearly shows this. As a Briton, I found myself feeling proud of my country - if I were a teenager deciding on which A-levels of degree to take, then watching this series just might influence my decision in favour of science and engineering subjects. However, I'm an adult with two science degrees and a deep interest in history - for me, the series was entertaining but intellectually unsatisfying. But it is, after all, television. If you have more than a passing interest in any of these scientists or about the history of modern science then read a book or two. Given the limitations of the video format, I think Genius of Britain was a moderate success. If it had gone into more depth then it would have struggled to present visual content other than the talking heads of the scientists and inventor who present the programme. If it had discussed the scientists concerned in a more global context then it would generate less pride in British science.
Astérix chez les Bretons (1986)
Great for children learning French and adults with a reasonable command of the language.
The overall plot of this animated version of Astérix chez les Bretons is faithful to that of the book. As the latter is perhaps the best of all the Astérix volumes, this film could fare badly in the comparison. But whereas most of the Astérix films lose much in the transition to a dumbed-down, vaguely Hollywoodesque cartoon that I suppose is meant to appeal to children, Asterix in Britain manages to retain much of what made the original (written and drawn) version great. I haven't yet listened to any of the dubbed versions of the film, but the French is particularly clever in using native English speakers to play the roles of the Bretons.
Day of Wrath (2006)
Bland B-movie
There is a reasonably interesting, albeit implausible, concept behind Day of Wrath (which I cannot reveal without spoiling the plot). Unfortunately the film fails to deliver much beyond this. 16th century Spain is potentially a very rich background for a film (and is vital component of this film's plot), but the producers of Day of Wrath have made virtually no attempt to localise the film. Just about the only thing discernibly Spanish about the film, apart from the actress Blanca Marsillach, was a leg of ham which appeared briefly in a single scene. Some viewers might be able to suspend their disbelief, but it was impossible for me to ignore the fact that this film was obviously made on a low budget in Hungary. It didn't help that the film's producers were lumbered with a leading man who can't act and a director/script-writer who lacked imagination. Oh wait, one of the producers was the leading man! That explains it. This was a vanity project for Christopher Lambert. Some of the cast put in convincing performances (Brian Blessed, Phylidda Law) and others did their best with very one-dimensional characters (Blanca Marsillach, James Faulkner, Szonja Oroszlan). But Christoper Lambert just failed to engage the audience with any sympathy for his character, and his voice - possibly an attempt at a Spanish accent - was just atrocious. To be fair, the director did manage to input a certain degree of atmosphere and suspense into some of the scenes (despite the presence of Lambert). But towards the end of the film the gratuitous use of blood and gore was completely over-the-top. Neither did the naked breasts do anything to advance the plot. I sense that the director needed to make use of an underemployed special effects expert, and felt that as two of his actresses had shapely mammaries he might as well display them. The only real credit goes to the Hungarian actors for doing their best in a foreign language - especially Lukács Bicskey who played the Hungarian mercenary. Why he had to play a Hungarian beggars belief when his English was delivered perfectly (a pity he couldn't have taught Lambert a thing or two about delivering in English).