HoraceBury Reviews

Skyline (2010)

Take it for what it is, the trailer gives you enough. High expectations? Leave alone. But it's fun!

[9/10 · 18 November 2010]

OK, look, there's a lot of people here absolutely slating this movie. "Worst movie of the year", "Avoid like the plague", "Save your money", "Don't even bother".

Hmm. I think the trailer pretty much summed the movie up a lot more accurately than most. So go with your gut on that one. If you expected 10 times as much action in the movie as in the trailer, then you haven't learnt anything from recent movie.

Right, so yes, it's not a brilliantly conceived movie, yes it's kind of a remake of Independence Day (but not as directly as some would have you believe) and yes, there's not a lot of brilliant dialogue.

But...

For the budget I think they had (I've not bothered to look it up) they got some well known faces, an interesting concept and knock out effects. Seriously, if anyone knocks the effects in this movie then they are simply trying too hard to slag it off. There were much bigger, more expensive and well made films this past year and a half which had much bigger problems in their effects dept. So don't bother.

For my money, it was actually refreshing to see some small screen actors taking to the big screen and owning it. OK, there weren't too many to compete against, but they did a good enough job for Independence Day. This isn't Shakespeare, so get over yourself.

I've been watching a lot more slower movies recently and enjoyed them, but what I really needed last night was aliens, special effects, cars getting stamped on and some damn spaceships. That's what I got. I didn't care about the characters and I didn't care about caring for the characters. So that's OK.

The final word.

If you want a movie with the above, don't care about the characters too much, want to care about the SFX and not the blonde, then see this movie.

If you want something intriguing, deep, emotional, well thought out, complex or whatever, then leave it alone until you do. But you will, sooner or later.

The ending is not what you expect and yes, think about it afterwards and it does throw the rest of the film into a new light - even if it's not particularly bright, it's something to think about for a (little) while.

4/10 - I enjoyed it, it's not Aliens, but at least it's not Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants.

Rubicon (2010)

Give it time, it's in the details

[8/10 · 11 September 2010]

I can see why many people would find this show hard to get into. The trailer for the show and the first episode appeared as though a deep, fast moving intelligence arena or encryption conspiracy was being presented. After the second and third episodes the energy appears gone and you're left wondering what the point is.

However, given the nature of the subject matter the above is probably a good thing. The patient are rewarded by the details of the stories taking shape slowly and connecting. The brilliant performances - and they are brilliant, because every single actor/ess is believable as a real character, probably so much so that the apparent dullness of daily life in the show put a lot of viewers off - quickly subdue the watcher into thinking that many characters are bit players. But given time, each one has more depth and cracks than are at first apparent. I believe this will turn into something very different - where every character is important and has a role to play. In a slow burning show like this, time is what is needed.

Having said that, I am only one or two episodes into being caught by the show. And it is still just a show. If the writers behind it cannot climax the tendrils of interests properly, it will fall heavily on its face. I would like to see this run, however, as it has the potential to not simply hit the tension-and-reset button between seasons, but be an engaging and truly thought provoking medium for many situations we find ourselves in.

Slipstream (2005)

Not what I was expecting, not in the least.

[1/10 · 30 September 2005]

After reading the review by D. Churchill I was really hyped to want to see this movie. I was looking forward to some interesting and maybe confusing storyline intermingled with cool time travel effects.

I will admit now that I haven't finished watching the movie, and I will, but thinking back to the first 70-80% I've seen so far, there isn't much pulling me back to it.

It is not a roller coaster. For the most part, there is NOT much time travel, only four instances and they cover less than 3 minutes worth of time shift, so the story is only affected slightly each time - and not terribly interestingly either.

The best part is the effect used when someone travels back in time, but it's easy to do and gets kicked in the head by effects used in, say, the Matrix. Which DID rock. For crying out loud.

There are shots (check the electricity on the 'time antenna' (or whatever) which are purely amateur as is the acting by all the FBI agents. Just painful.

The plot of the Lord of the Rings confused me more than this movie. Following the story is so easy that if you cut out the time travel parts, you could still follow it.

However, Sean Astin DOES act his heart out. He has to. Vinnie Jones also pumps it up as much as possible, considering he's supposed to be the same character he always plays, but without real violence or swearing. V.J. does NOT belong in any movie with anything less than a 15 cert.

Amusing, but not worth the entrance fee - so I'm glad I haven't seen this anywhere but Blockbuster.

2 Fast 2 Furious (2003)

2 bad and 2 lumpy

[4/10 · 28 June 2003]

Ok, so it was probably not going to be the oscar winner every movie maker wants, but actors can only do as the director tells them. I hope they have a wider talent than this movie portrays, cos they is dead in the water if not.

The cars had talent, but even that wasn't used enough. Ok, there were some nice lights and a lot of noise, but it looked like the budget was lower than the first movie. That's what made the first movie great- real nice cars used well. (If the actors demanded all the budget for themselves, they were very wise; if not, very dumb, but it killed the film).

Unfortunately, the story which made the first movie appreciable was non-existent. I just didn't care about any of the characters. 'Leading lady', as such, Eva Mendes, I just didn't give a hoot about, let alone get attracted to. However, Devon Aoki - the unbelieably cute and sexy "Suki" - was awsome, but completely underused. I will definately be watching her future productions, I just pray her acting comes through in them.

Finale: Worth watching if you've the time, but if there's anything better on, watch that. (It's a pity, cos I really liked the first one.)

Doorways (1993 TV Movie)

Just too bad to be true

[28 June 2003]

I've got to admit I could not watch more than 10 minutes of this. Sorry.

The opening sequence appears to be the first of it's kind; it has absolutely no idea of how to do what it's attempting. The whole thing looks like it was made early 80's, although Terminator looks better!

Budget? What's a budget.

Story? Oh, we ripped that from a guy writing a show called Sliders.

If you see this in a video rental store, ignore it.

Sweet November (2001)

Good, tear jerking, better ending than expected.

[18 February 2003]

[no spoilers]

I was expecting a run on the mill love story I could watch to get me to sleep, didn't happen. While I could turn it off, I didn't want to.

I'm glad a lot of people seem to like this movie, but there is a cliche - though the trap most films fall into is nicely avoided right at the end and you can't help but feel, at least, something.

The story is slightly contrived, as some point out, but what film isn't???

Many people won't like this movie, but if you are not expecting, or wanting, The Matrix, this is probably for you - it's not too girly for men and definately not too manly for girls.

Pro: Good, almost believable (in this nutter Hollywood-driven world we have) story.

Con: Keanu Reeves needs a little more method acting, or should stick to Sci-Fi (definately too old for Bill and Ted these days, tho).

Blood Work (2002)

Not classic, but well done

[8/10 · 5 February 2003]

What I liked about this movie: Eastwood and all his surrounding characters are all 'real'(istic). There's no showy "Pick up the gun...", Garciella is a woman stuck in a bad situation and Eastwood's entire life history isn't picked apart for the benefit of one final kill.

Eastwood plays his character very well; a guy recently out of a heart transplant and very much in his later years, who you can feel for and really don't want him to push it too much. He probably didn't find this part too taxing, frankly, but excellent actors don't need to push their limits to make us believe them.

The plots links work reasonably well - the clues in the crime don't appear to lead anywhere helpful and there's no real major revelations. Again, it comes across as believable.

Parts where it approaches unbelievable are kept well-balanced; the follow-up from the 'intimate scene' is good because too many films have done it the other way (you'll see what I mean).

It's a good story, well told, for (as one reviewer said here) the adult audience, and well directed.

What I didn't like: The 'intimate scene' between Eastwood and the woman (won't tell you who). A little cringe-worthy and just beyond believable because you're pretty much expecting it - every hollywood movie has it. But they kept it to a minimum.

I (being a pessimistic movie-goer) was expecting the killer to be who he/she/it/they was from around half-way. Before that and anyone who says they know who did it is purely speculating, there is nothing approaching concrete to substantiate it. Though it was kind of good to realise it early.

I think they could have traded the Russian character (being somewhat superfluous, IMHO) with some time showing that it should be harder for an ex-agent to get at sensitive files, but I understand the decision because it may have got simply tiring.

All in all, a good movie if you want a bit of Eastwood and tension and maybe you're feeling old today.

Slackers (2002)

Funny, but not brilliant.

[14 October 2002]

Ok, I've seen some very polarised comments made about this movie. I have to say that there are funny jokes in it, but that it did lack a certain continuity. The overall story is fairly unbelievable and is a formula well-used by American teen comedies. It should have made more of the fact that they lie and cheat, but we saw more of a screwed-up love tryst going on. I did enjoy this movie, but if I'm not working I'll pretty much enjoy anything.

Dang, I thought it was very entertaining while I was watching it, but there you go.

One last thing, Jason Schwartzman playing Ethan should definately go on to greater things, as should Devon Sawa. They both played their parts true to character, but Jason definately had the better (freakier) piece, and handled it very well.

Watch and make your own decision.

Novocaine (2001)

This is my review, too.

[6/10 · 8 October 2002]

Not really what I had expected. The plot leaves you feeling like the initial characters are not who you expected them to be. Not as funny as I thought it would be, but a neat little bit of video entertainment. Some may love this film, but I just sat there and thought, "that was ok, what's next" - then I watched "Wonder Boys".

Legally Blonde (2001)

Clueless, without the story or intellect.

[1/10 · 6 October 2002]

This movie is one of the most shallow and crass films I've ever seen. The lead character expects everything to go her way, so following crass Hollywood tradition, it does. This is the basic premise for everything in the plot (which is is extremely thin).

The film would have you believe that if you are of the insignificantly small percentage of people to be voted "best looker of the class" that you somehow also are awarded the ability to make the clever people stupid, stupid people clever, right all wrongs and adjust nature to your way of thinking - all because of looks (and daddies money, if you want to put some depth into it).

Don't try to dissect this movie to find a deeper meaning; there isn't one. Maybe watch it if you are female, have been dumped recently and are very stoned.

Grease (1978)

Gravely shallow.

[1/10 · 6 October 2002]

Individually the components of this movie have quality. The same cannot be said about the movie because it is hypocrytical and appears to want to remove good intentions from anyone under the age of 60 when it comes to love. I blame this film for the problem of unhappy, unsupported, single parent families.

Dragonfly (2002)

Much more than expected.

[1 October 2002]

Many may think they know the ending, but they will be suprised. This is a beautiful film with much more depth and understanding than initially appears. If you think it is going to be an average hollywood ghost story, think again.

Signs (2002)

Scary. Best movie of this year.

[10/10 · 13 September 2002]

Go and see this film right now.

I have to write about this film now - it's 3:15am and I've just finished watching it.

This movie will make you tense and scared. You will think you are being prepared for what is to come, then realise (too late) that your'e not. Don't even try to kid yourself.

We came out of the film and no-one spoke, we were shaking.

Don't let anyone tell you what happens in the film, just go see it right now.

Minority Report (2002)

Intense

[9/10 · 28 July 2002]

First off, this is a must-see, big-screen Event. Go see it.

It confirms Steven Spielberg as one of the greatest directors ever. Tom Cruise is actually capable of quite a range of screen-depiction of character. His fame, unfortunately, precedes him and will forever cast him negatively.

Anyway, this film is longer than you might expect and the trailers won't ruin it at all. The special effects are amazing and mostly the futurism is believable.

Most of all, what will get you is that just when you think the film is about to end (and not at a bad point at that) it shoots off in another direction and surprises you.

I have to say that Agatha's actress is extremely powerful at just the right moment and will reach right into you, with a simple word.

My one and only (minor) gripe, is that where the film should have ended it doesn't, and plays to the heart more than it should (as with A.I. - Steven, please stop doing that).

Go see it.

The Matrix (1999)

Pure Genius

[10/10 · 28 July 2002]

This movie confirms Keanu Reeves as utterly cool. Same goes for Laurence Fishbourne.

Special effects: amazing. Story: Amazing. Acting: Amazing (Carrie-Anne Moss pulls off the best tacky-line said with least tackiness trick EVER!)

If your'e not into Sci-Fi or Sfx, don't bother.

Carrie-Anne Moss was also in Memento, another stunner.

Come on, everyone has seen this by now - just go buy the DVD and watch it.

The Truman Show (1998)

Perfect.

[10/10 · 28 July 2002]

Confirming Jim Carrey as an Actor, not just a comedian, and placing the most media-questioning punch of all-time in it's face, this film delivers thought provoking emotion and comedy all in one.

The thought which should stay with you in the end is: The media probably will do this one day - isn't that wrong? Can it be stopped? And perhaps, is it me?

Resident Evil (2002)

Faced paced action, a bit of gore, beautiful woman.

[8/10 · 15 July 2002]

Ok, there is nothing original about this film, but, as with a number of films being made recently, it can somtimes look original because of the recent love with computer graphics and eye-pleasing cleanliness of of recent movies.

Milla looks great and proves herself once again, even if there is little clothing or script available sometimes. Some might say that she was a little too undressed for the film's rating, (but I reserve opinion as I like to think I'm well balanced enough not to be affected).

The action is very cool; violence equally so - although some taken (come on guys, admit it) straight from the excellent, minor cult movie 'Cube'. My only grudge on the sfx and action is that we could have seen the hologram a bit more. My only grudge on the storyline is that it was asking me to stretch my disbelief almost that bit too far, which even I can do quite frequently.

All in all, I now realise they may have been saving a bit of the budget for the sequel - which I hope lives up to it's future hype. I must congratulate the script writers, sfx guys and actors for a job well done, considering game-to-movie conversions have not faired so well (see the excellent 'Wing Commander' - yes, I stand by that).

Meet Joe Black (1998)

Emotional, human and perfectly acted.

[8/10 · 2 January 2002]

I was not intending to see this film at all as the reviews I saw/received were not glowing and it looked extremely boring, as well as long.

I happened to see all but the first hour tonight (yes, it is long) and I must see the beginning. Perhaps I will see all of it when I am next with my closest loverd-one. It's how this film is.

Although the ending left me feeling as though we needed to see more, perhaps we didn't. We know what happened - although the emotion may have needed turning around.

It is a very emotional film and although there are parts I would have liked to have seen included it is such that you feel absolutely connected with the characters - even without ever having known their kind of life.

Every actor/ess is perfect and the cast could not have been better. Anthony Hopkins is, as always, genius. Even the supporting members were perfect.

See it.