Change Your Image
anthony-burton4
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Halo (2022)
Exceeded mission parameters in every way
Halo, Combat Evolved was one of the greatest First Person Shooters ever created, and in my top 3 all time games. But typically TV adaptations of games are trash designed to simply earn a bit of cash from an already loyal following, so I put this series on with extremely low expectations. It's a real delight to be so completely surprised!
The Halo lore was built up over a number of games, so the Universe is quite complex and fleshed out - the TV series opted to commence with 2 threads from the outset - the fight of the colonies against an oppressive and cruel interstellar government (UNSC) which only cares about keeping the fuel supplies running, and the fight of the human race against the aliens known as the Covenant. The twin plot approach (with crossovers) makes it far more interesting than if they'd simply stuck with one plot line based around the lead - Master Chief.
I think the pacing is perfect, to the extent that I could easily have watched the entire 9h in a single sitting. Pablo Schreiber (Master Chief) is a little wooden (but not distractingly so), which fits at the start, but later on when he develops emotions I wanted a little more from the actor. I also find Olive Gray (Miranda Keyes) poor in her role so far. However Charlie Murphy (Makee), Nasascha McElhone (Catherine Halsey), Bokeem Woodbine (Soren) and Burn Gorman (Vinsher Grath) all excel.
Production standards are superlative with top-notch visuals, special effects and score.
Many have criticised Kwan's character, which I can understand - at times she is annoying, but she is a young girl who has just had her entire settlement wiped out by aliens, to be saved by a member of UNSC who she knew her father had been fighting against... it's not exactly a simple role to fulfil. I think her storyline adds a LOT to the show because it demonstrates the flaws in human kind - there are a number of parallels drawn between the Covenant and humans in this regard.
Others have criticised the show for not being faithful to the game... err what? That's a GOOD thing! It would be impossible to keep an audience entertained for long with a simplistic plot from a FPS. The show captures the game UNIVERSE exceptionally well and the characters are faithful to the originals. That's more than enough for me to appreciate the cross over.
The Wheel of Time (2021)
Promising start but soon becomes dross
I was very much looking forward to the screen adaptation of one of my favourite novel series. I'm not the type to worry about faithfulness incidentally - for example I think Foundation is excellent and it bears little resemblance to the books.
The start of Wheel of Time had me worried though - they skipped out a prologue that is pretty much essential to understand the plot in the books, but I let it pass.
The first three episodes which were released together were a tease. The cinematography is beautiful - very much like LotR, and while I had reservations about the characters - everything seemed a bit wooden, I let this pass too as I'd had the same feeling about The Expanse when it began, and as the series developed, the characters grew into their roles. So by the end of Episode 3, I still had great expectations although I wasn't particularly hooked yet by this show.
Episodes 4 and 5 killed it. I still am no closer to knowing, or liking any of the main characters. The action scenes are so confusing they're just boring, and the plot, which is quite different from the novels now, is full of major inconsistencies already!
Episode 5 is so badly directed it's cringeworthy in places with script and movement reminiscent of a school play.
In short, WoT is a prime example (pardon the pun) of how throwing a lot of money at something doesn't remotely compensate for lack of talent.
Loki (2021)
Start piques interest, develops nicely before descending into something close to farce.
I completed watching Season 1 last night and I have very mixed feelings about this show.
I really like the three main characters. The interaction between Loki (Tom Hiddleston) and Sylvie (Sophia Di Martino) is great and Owen Wilson as Mobius brings some real quality. The rest of the cast are somewhat unimpressive so far, although in fairness, none of the other characters have had much to do/say so far.
I liked the rather Hitchhiker's guide feel to the TVA - when introducing something so bizarre it's always best to add plenty of humour, and things were building up nicely.
But then it gets rather silly and starts to resemble a low budget sci-fi comedy from the 80's. Eg The alligator I mean WTF!
I'm left hoping that this first season was all simply to test the waters, and set up for better seasons to come. The last two episodes had the feel of a hurried pilot. Only time will tell.
Watership Down (2018)
Good animation, but disappointing overall
The Richard Adams novel on which this is based was one of my favourite books as a child and if you haven't read it, I highly recommend it. The book was first brought to the screens in 1978 and while most movie adaptations of great books are lacking, this film was pretty decent.
I was looking forward to seeing the new version as animation has come a long way since 1978 and on that note, the series is breathtaking. If you don't look too closely the scenery appears almost real, while the rabbits, while clearly animated figures move in a very believable way.
After that I'm afraid things go downhill. There's a number of changes made from the book and I struggle to see the point in any of them and they all detract - the animation sequence explaining how rabbits got their tail and strong rear legs is rewritten and rushed - why? The narrative in the book is excellent and the 1978 film used it verbatim so why the inferior change?
The chase to the river (which wasn't in the book) - the owsla are right on Hazel's group's tail and suddenly they have enough time to jump on a bin lid and push off - and WHY didn't the owsla follow, the river was extremely narrow and two of hazel's group swim it! And seriously, mid-chase, when they're fleeing for their lives, Blackberry decides to try a completely new idea of using a raft?? AND manages to convince the rest of them that it's a good idea INSTANTLY?? Ridiculous and forced.
The meeting with Kehaar was completely changed - in the book and 1978 movie, Kehaar is rude to them when they first meet him, but they then shelter him and feed him and he becomes their friend. Here, they shelter and feed him and THEN he's rude to them and flies off only to return after suffering a recurrence of his injury. Why change it? It makes far less sense.
Bigwig - he comes out to stop Hazel and co escaping and then decides to join them?? In the book he sought out Hazel before they leave to ask about the warning and THEN decides to join them. This changed version is so weak - and then at the farm he takes on a cat?? Really?
Finally, the narrative from Holly about what happened to the original warren. In the book and the 1978 movie it was grim, horrifying even although not too much for a child. Here they skip through it, there's a few shots of the ground shaking and bits of earth falling and then it cuts back to Holly who simply says "I escaped somehow".
My overarching impression is that they took the main action sequences of the novel and then fitted them together with as little story as possible and characterisation as possible. It's basically dumbed down massively.
To anyone contemplating watching it - if you haven't read the book, watch the '78 version first - THEN watch this - that way at least you'll know the characters and can overlook the lack of depth in the new revision.
Watership Down (2018)
Good animation, but disappointing overall
The Richard Adams novel on which this is based was one of my favourite books as a child and if you haven't read it, I highly recommend it. The book was first brought to the screens in 1978 and while most movie adaptations of great books are lacking, this film was pretty decent.
I was looking forward to seeing the new version as animation has come a long way since 1978 and on that note, the series is breathtaking. If you don't look too closely the scenery appears almost real, while the rabbits, while clearly animated figures move in a very believable way.
After that I'm afraid things go downhill. There's a number of changes made from the book and I struggle to see the point in any of them and they all detract - the animation sequence explaining how rabbits got their tail and strong rear legs is rewritten and rushed - why? The narrative in the book is excellent and the 1978 film used it verbatim so why the inferior change?
The chase to the river (which wasn't in the book) - the owsla are right on Hazel's group's tail and suddenly they have enough time to jump on a bin lid and push off - and WHY didn't the owsla follow, the river was extremely narrow and two of hazel's group swim it! And seriously, mid-chase, when they're fleeing for their lives, Blackberry decides to try a completely new idea of using a raft?? AND manages to convince the rest of them that it's a good idea INSTANTLY?? Ridiculous and forced.
The meeting with Kehaar was completely changed - in the book and 1978 movie, Kehaar is rude to them when they first meet him, but they then shelter him and feed him and he becomes their friend. Here, they shelter and feed him and THEN he's rude to them and flies off only to return after suffering a recurrence of his injury. Why change it? It makes far less sense.
Bigwig - he comes out to stop Hazel and co escaping and then decides to join them?? In the book he sought out Hazel before they leave to ask about the warning and THEN decides to join them. This changed version is so weak - and then at the farm he takes on a cat?? Really?
Finally, the narrative from Holly about what happened to the original warren. In the book and the 1978 movie it was grim, horrifying even although not too much for a child. Here they skip through it, there's a few shots of the ground shaking and bits of earth falling and then it cuts back to Holly who simply says "I escaped somehow".
My overarching impression is that they took the main action sequences of the novel and then fitted them together with as little story as possible and characterisation as possible. It's basically dumbed down massively.
To anyone contemplating watching it - if you haven't read the book, watch the '78 version first - THEN watch this - that way at least you'll know the characters and can overlook the lack of depth in the new revision.
11.22.63 (2016)
The best King screen adaptation?
Although I'm a prolific reader, I have never read any King so my only experience of his work is from TV/Movie adaptations. I have always found him to present highly imaginative plots that were usually let down by low budget, poorly acted productions. There's a number I nevertheless enjoy, among them Dreamcatcher, The Mist and The Silver Bullet, but I wouldn't rate any as excellent.
11.22.63 is in a completely different league.
The first 15 minutes are a little contrived and awkward, but once he travels back in time everything changes and by the end of the first episode I was very much hooked in - each episode ends with a cliffhanger drawing you on and incredibly THIS never does feel forced. It's the perfect show for binge watching.
What I find interesting, particularly watching this right after the first season of the Handmaid's tale, is the number of parallels between the two. Stephen King is best known for horror, and while there are no fantastical beasts or demons in this series, I found many passages immensely disturbing. There have been many other movies that considered racism in the US south during this period (e.g. Mississippi Burning), but I can't recall any that addressed the puritanical, misogynistic undercurrents that underpinned this era. Not that this is the main focus of this series, but it does provide a powerful backstop.
James Franco is excellent as the lead - some have criticised his inability to portray the "average guy" and there are numerous instances where one could argue his behaviour isn't entirely realistic, but that's part of the charm. He's average like Humphrey Bogart is average in The Big Sleep where as a viewer you have to resolve the inherent conflict in being presented with a "star" but told to accept them as normal. His romance with the truly stunning Sadie (Sarah Gadon) reminds me a lot of some of the old Hollywood greats - beautiful people falling in love at first sight. Is it realistic? Probably not, but you WANT to buy into it so you do and you never feel short-changed.
Finally you have the whole Kennedy assassination itself and the plot? behind it - what actually happened? The story line here is good, but of only secondary importance to me - if anything it simply provides an excuse for the Romance to take place against, although it becomes increasingly important towards the end of the series. There is however plenty to make you think.
It's rare to find something that combines so many different genres, Romance, Mystery, Thriller, Drama and does them all so well. If you can buy into this then it will keep you on the edge of your seat for 8h. i HIGHLY recommend a watch.
Knives Out (2019)
Slowish first half but great finale
Firstly, this is a black comedy - don't expect any laughs until perhaps the closing scenes - unless of course it is at Daniel Craig's utterly awful US accent - thankfully he doesn't speak too often.
It's quite good to see a murder-mystery that actually lays out the clues for you to link up yourself before actually taking you by the hand and explaining everything at the end. It's even better to see one that isn't predictable AFTER you've worked out did what when... yes, there's a number of threads that combine deliciously for the grand finale.
Watch this one with a little patience - don't expect it to grab you in the first 45 mins but it's worth it for the second half.
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
I couldn't wait for it to end
Hey Patty, we're fed up of making Superhero movies - can you write one that's so bad nobody will ever want to watch one again?
Yes - it's that bad.
I mean it's not just SET in the 80's, where everything is extremely brightly coloured (what you don't remember THAT?), but we have all the 80's shallow stereotypes to boot. Gal Gadot and Chris Pine have a couple of touching moments, but it's entirely based on characters built in other movies - hard to feel any resonance with the 2D roles they play here.
If I had to guess, I'd wager that Patty Jenkins had some "epiphany" moment in her life and decided to write a WW film to "teach" the world this lesson: Behave and be satisfied with what you have otherwise you'll destroy the world - something along those kind of lines.... yes - the whole movie is a bit like one of those parables you got at Sunday school - just unfortunately a lot longer.
Still at least they squeezed in Linda Carter for 5 seconds - yes, there's 2 wonder women in this movie, no it doesn't explain why - there almost certainly isn't an explanation - they just thought it would be cool to have her in... go figure.
The Cruel Sea (1953)
Brilliant book - film is poor
The novel on which the movie is based is a very intense account of WWII in the Atlantic from the perspective of an escort vessel. These ships, frequently merchant ships with a gun or two, depth charge racks and sonar retrofitted in a hurry and then sent to sea with barely trained crews. Reliant on convoys from the US for food, fuel and ammunition, the threat from German U Boats nearly cost Britain the war.
Life at sea was savage, with danger lurking constantly not just below the surface, but also from the Luftwaffe and occasionally a German pocket battleship. Odds of surviving were low.
The movie attempts to bring much of this to the big screen, but it is severely hampered by the limitations of what it could actually show an audience of the 50's. It's difficult to paint the grimness of it all when every would-be distressing scene is hidden, and showing the horror through the reaction of the actors is beyond the skills of this cast - perhaps any cast of its day would have struggled. You see ships blow up in the distance - just small flashes really and nobody really reacts. For that to work, you'd need to capture the horror of the event at some point and contrast that with the necessary matter-of-fact response from those so familiar with the losses that they have lost the emotional capacity to react to them. As it is, the movie just feels flat.
Ealing studios excel at capturing the everyday feel of life in many of their movies, but this action film is perhaps beyond them. Scenes such as the sea-trials/training for the newly converted escort, or the PIIIIING lecture were very reminiscent of one of their comedies, albeit with less humour - but this movie required a different approach.
Perhaps at best it can be described as a kind of rudimentary documentary to the Battle of the Atlantic for those unfamiliar with it. It can also act as a memorial - for that reason I feel I am being a harsh judge here, but I am weighing it as a standalone movie, and not weighting my vote with the fact that this stood out for a long time as one of the very few movies to attempt to portray the horror of war.
The Changeling (1980)
Strange reviews - this isn't a horror!
OK firstly let me say this is an excellent movie, albeit with a few flaws.
However it is certainly NOT a horror movie, nor is it particularly chilling. It's a supernatural mystery/suspense reminiscent of The Others.
It shows its age a little - production values have moved on since - and there are some rather big holes in the plot.
Like why if the spirit has the power to overturn a car and kill the driver, does it need any help to kill the senator? The only possible explanation here would have been that it needed the truth to come out AS Well, but then why attack John for not doing enough?
There is nothing to suggest at the end that the truth will be revealed either.
Imo it's great up to the part at which they discover the bones, after that it fades somewhat, probably because the producer wanted a grand finale. Love to see a modern remake with a more refined ending.
The Conjuring 2 (2016)
How can the same director get it so wrong?
Firstly can I say that The Conjuring - the first movie, was one of the best haunted house movies I've seen, if not the best. While it brought little new to the genre, there is after all only limited scope for this, what it delivered was impeccable, and it avoided using manipulative "effects", visual and sound, in order to deliver its thrills.
The follow-up, "The Conjuring 2", by contrast manages to get everything wrong!
For starters in the original, while based on a "true story", i.e. the events in the movie were as reported and investigated by Ed & Lorraine, this is irrelevant - it adds little (unless you believe it's all real) and it certainly takes nothing away - the second movie makes it more of a mission statement. For background, the haunting was thoroughly investigated and plenty of evidence came to light that the girls were faking it - paranormal investigators were heavily criticised for accepting that some of the events WERE faked but still believing the haunting was real! The movie faithfully covered all of this and in doing so, destroyed the suspension of belief, viewers are asked to engage when watching this kind of movie. How can you believe the haunting is real, when the movie is showing you evidence it isn't? You end up viewing many of the events as totally laughable - it's rather like Scooby Doo in places!
Secondly, the original spent just the right amount of time setting the scene: letting you into the family's life so you like them, and then building up the suspense oh so slowly to the point you are desperate for Ed And Lorraine to get involved and help. The Conjuring 2 however runs two thread plots from the start, one set in England, and one set at the Warren's home - it's not clear at all if they interact, never mind how until the end of the movie. It tries to build up BOTH threads, but as a result it takes twice as long and you end up bored - not just that, but the constant chopping and changing ruins the effect. It's not until the last 30 mins of the 134 min long movie that the action begins and it's over in a trice with a frankly absurd plot suddenly sprung upon the viewer.
The setting is problematic, while a remote farmhouse with a foreboding tree next to a still lake gives a perfect background to a ghost story, a 70's council estate really doesn't. OK, so that's where the Enfield haunting occurred, but it makes it all less believable.
Finally, the shocks - yes I jumped a couple of times, but that was simply due to cheap effects. The movie isn't remotely scary, well maybe to young children it could be, but to an adult, it's more like pantomime. Nearly everything that is going to happen is predictable, the camera work if nothing else, telegraphs it.
The fact that we hardly got to know the family involved either since most of their lines were simply various types of screaming (yes, there's plenty of that - maybe to make up for the lack of it from the audience?), so it was difficult to care about whether anything happened to them anyway.
In short, while I awarded the first movie 8 and it may even rise to a 9 after a second viewing, this offering is total junk.
The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (2015)
Unmissable
The most critical of the "professional" reviews lambasted this movie for NOT demonstrating a believable way to "save the world".
I kind of wonder when movies were supposed to stop being about entertainment and started being relevant only when they carried a political message. If you're looking for a movie that glorifies veganism, feminism, or criticises capitalism or US foreign policy - this ain't it.
What it IS is a beautifully made pastiche of the 60's constructed as an exciting and genuinely funny spy/action movie.
The interplay between the three central characters is the key to making this movie work - as the Star Wars franchise showed, special effects and action are no substitute for real, engaging, human characters and a clever script. The rivalry between Solo (Cavill) and Kuryakin (Armie Hammer) is brilliant and Gaby Teller brilliantly stirs things further creating just the right amount of sexual tension to keep things interesting while steering clear of typical movie cliches. Hugh Grant's later appearance as Waverly is the icing on the cake.
Meanwhile, the attention to detail in the settings is second to none, with the gorgeous soundtrack adding another dimension. Everything conspires to transport you back to this more innocent age.
If you're dead set on expecting a Mission Impossible type of movie, then you may be disappointed - unlike M.I., The Man from U.N.C.L.E. doesn't take itself too seriously - the chase at the start being the first sign of that. In that regard it's very similar to Guy Ritchie's Sherlock movies, with hilarious moments, but never descending into slapstick or coarseness. Mixed in amongst the humour are some genuinely touching moments and plenty of high-octane thrills. You end up loving this team in a way that you never can with M.I.
If you haven't seen it, give it a go - it may be the best spy film you'll ever watch.
The Butterfly Effect (2004)
People are what life makes of them
Every so often a movie comes along that shows the limitations of "critics" who are at the end of the day simply regular folk who watch a LOT of movies. They clearly didn't understand this one!
The Butterfly Effect explores something that we'd all love to do if we had chance and that is to go back in time, with our current knowledge, and change the past in the hope of improving the present. But more importantly it explores the connection between experience and personality. Events shape us. A different past means a different person.
Many reviewers focus on the paedophile but this isn't a movie about the impact of sexual abuse on kids - that's just one example of action/consequence.
Successful people often attribute their life to their personality - "if you were like me, you'd be rich/happy too". Few ever contemplate what is more likely :that their positive, can-do attitude stems from earlier (lucky) successes. Take anyone, put them in a no-win situation and sooner or later they'll become miserable, stressed and either violent or suicidal.
The weak point in this movie is the scene where Kayleigh is killed by dynamite. I mean what was Evan thinking? Was it an attempt to kill George - if so pretty unlikely only he would die as the children were all in the same small space. That moment was too unbelievable for me.
Some have called the ending weak, perhaps because it isn't your typical Hollywood, everyone lives happily ever after moment - but that's half the point - in each alternate reality some people are happier, some are sadder - Evan finished by selflessly choosing one in which he was the only one to "suffer". The point is its about more than just Evan. Each of us interact with the world as we live - no matter what our intentions, some of those interactions are good for others and some bad. The only way to "correct" our bad interactions may be not to interact at all, but since that isn't possible in the real world, the important thing is to recognise that these consequences exist and to be sensitive to them.
Lenny hates Frat boys because they've always been mean to him. Frat boys hate Lenny because he's always weirdly scary. If in the reality we're Evan was a frat boy but remembered Lenny could be nice, he had the power to change things - maybe? Perhaps not - but he had the power not to make things worse.
Behind every sad, angry, strange person there's a story - YOU could be in their shoes if you'd had their life. Think before you judge. I could go on, but you will either get this or you won't.
Await Further Instructions (2018)
British Cinema at its absolute worst
I guess if you enjoy watching British Soaps, and love weird Horror movies, then this is right up your street. Otherwise, run away - run now, don't look back!
One of the odd things about the acting world is that many of the top actors and actresses are British - the UK seems to produce some incredibly talented people, but there is absolutely no strength in depth. While B-list US actors are often still very talented, not so in the UK. With the exception of David Bradly, playing his usual cantankerous role, none of the rest of the cast are even remotely believable.
Factor in an atrocious plot which steals some ideas from The Cube, but sadly not enough of them, and you have a recipe for a totally cringeworthy film.
I frankly can't imagine paying to watch this trash at the cinema, even watching at home, I ended up turning it off after 45 mins, which thankfully seems to have spared me from the even more awful ending that other reviewers complain about.
There is one piece of "cleverness" in this movie: the characters' personas are very real and very common and perhaps the true horror in this movie is that. To control people, first give them something to fear, invent it if necessary. Once you control their fear, you can gain their trust, once you control both their fear and their trust, you can make them do anything, even self-harm. You watch this and you think, there's no way anyone would be stupid enough to do what the TV tells them to, but then you think about Trump, and Brexit and you realise that yes, people really are that stupid.
Radius (2017)
Like all good SciFi this is really about people
Very good low budget mystery/thriller.
So a serial killer is transformed is given a power that kills any living thing within 50 feet
while his next would-be victim is given the power to stop this as long as she's close by.
BOTH have their memories wiped.
It's a fascinating setup on many fronts. For starters it raises the age old question of what makes us who we are. It we have no memory of who we are, are we not a different person? If we forget not just about committing a crime, but everything that made us commit it, then are we still guilty?
This idea is raised by the pizza question. She apparently didn't like pizzas, but now, memory wiped she cannot comprehend anyone NOT liking pizzas. Would she now happily eat one? We never find out. We do find out that the killer now hates killing people.
Short film, focuses on this issue without getting bogged down in any unecessary SciFi nonsense. It's limited, but almost perfect in execution.
Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
Respectable addition to the franchise
There is nothing particularly new in this movie, which is essentially a remake of Terminator 2.
It's a far less powerful movie than Terminator Genisys, so from that perspective it's a little disappointing, but it's still entertaining, especially if you're new to the Terminator movies.
Some reviewers complain about the "feminist" "angle". After watching, I'm left feeling for these precious little neanderthals - I mean get real! 3 of the 5 main characters are female. Whoopy do!
Others are unhappy that inconsistencies have been introduced into the franchise! Huh? The movies are about time travel which isn't even freakin possible. Even leaving that aside, every movie in the franchise starts by changing things. In T1, the machines managed to send ONE Terminator before the device was destroyed, yet T2 happened. In T2 they destroy sky net, but it changes nothing as Skynet evolves in a different way. Because Time Travel exists, anything can be undone /redone. So this movie makes further "changes" - perhaps it's "failure" is that it doesn't dwell on trying to present a stupid argument as to "how" thing got changed.
So watch with an open mind. Don't expect anything amazing, but imo it's on a par with T2-T4.
Army of Darkness (1992)
Almost so bad it's almost so good
It's mad-cap, non-stop action, but the "humour" is quite slapstick. It truly is terrible but in a way that's slightly endearing. The trouble is though, the "hero" is a complete ass and even when he has his moral epithany moment, he remains fundamentally an ass. Add in the fact that the *big* baddie is ridiculous and not even humorously horrifying and you're left wondering what the point is.
It compares rather poorly to Evil Dead.
Perhaps if I'd seen this when it was released I'd think better of it. However, today I can imagine loving this movie if I was stoned. Without chemical assistance though it's merely briefly and mildly entertaining.
2010 (1984)
Unfair to compare to 2001
Arthur C Clarke and Kubrik worked together to write 2001 although the book and film ended up slightly differently.
Arthur C Clarke wrote the sequel, not to his book version but to the movie in 1982 and this movie is based on that book.
2001 was more a work of art than a movie. It was also ground-breaking in trying for the first time, to present a scientifically accurate space movie. Its style could not be repeated with any hope of success 20 years later. A different approach was needed and 2010 delivers this. The sequel is much more focused on the plot, yet manages to pay sufficient homage to the original.
The acting is OK - about as good as in 2001 and the special effects are also par for the 80's. It delivers a fair amount of suspense with cold-War tensions as well as Hal rebooted posing potentially serious problems.
It's unlikely to knock anyone off their feet, but it's nevertheless a reasonably entertaining SciFi movie which has suffered little in the way of dating so if you enjoyed 2001, put this on your ToWatch list. Just lower your expectations a little!
The Andromeda Strain (1971)
Slow, flat and full of scientific nonsense.
As an avid Science Fiction fan I had high expectations for this movie having read through some reviews. Accolades such as "very realistic and scientifically accurate" are common. I'm left wondering if I'm watching the same movie!
The plot itself is excellent - taken from a very good book and it should have been straightforward to produce a decent movie given the budget available. Unfortunately the actors and direction do their level best to take out all the drama and suspense. A movie about mixing paint could have been more gripping.
It's certainly true that a LOT of effort has been spent on trying to make it seem realistic but they should really have employed some actual scientists to advise.
Eg The decontamination procedure - radiation that turns the entire surface skin to ash yet does no other harm? And why would that be useful anyway - if (and its a big if) any contaminants were present that couldn't be washed off would be spread through deeper skin layers.
And the use of long-wavelength light to decontaminate but "close your eyes so you're not blinded"? Long wavelength radiation is low energy and wouldn't kill anything nor would it blind you. You'd use ultraviolet for decontamination which is short-wavelength.
And why does it take DAYS to decontaminate? No scientific reason for that!
The analysis of the "substance" is just as bad.
So no, the accuracy of the science is NOT a plus factor.
The House of the Devil (2009)
No idea why the critics love it.
The most interesting thing about this movie is that it's set in the 80's while reminding me a little of a hammer house production in that it's somewhat of a panto style horror. HERE is the creepy bad guy. Creepy house. No don't go upstairs! Etc I think this is deliberate - i.e. the producer is trying to copy the style of early "bad" horror movies.
The only "moment" in the film is the first death scene which is a little sudden and shocking - before we didn't really know what kind of movie this was going to be - now we do. The rest is simply a well worn plot with nothing new added. If you're completely new to horror movies, maybe you may find this gripping? If you've watched more than a handful it's completely and utterly predictable.
There's little suspense since you, just like the main character are simply killing time and waiting for the action to begin. And when it does, its over in a jiffy. Essentially this is a 10 minute movie stretched out to 90 mins.
The action is rather improbable too, with one "escape" reminding me of early Flash Gordon movies where the end of one episode meant certain death, while the start of the next one rearranged things in the recap so that survival was possible. If you've seen this movie already, hopefully you know the scene I'm referring to. It's so bad, you wonder if it's deliberate!
Save time - just watch the trailer. Leave it at that.
Hot Tub Time Machine (2010)
Awful start, but gets better
The main trouble with this movie is that the director subscribes to the belief that swearing is funny all by itself. That if you just go "FK", people will laugh.
Well, maybe some do, if you're one of these, you'll probably LOVE this movie. If not then you may not make it through the first 20 mins. In fact, it's hard to like any of the characters on first impressions - they're either obnoxious, or losers, or both!
But once it gets going, it improves quite a bit - there's some good interplay between the guys and a number of decent jokes - not really enough though - the concept is great and they could have achieved far more with it. And there's far too much pointless profanity.
Peppermint (2018)
Jennifer you're awesome but...
If you watched Alias you know what I'm talking about. If you didn't, well you probably shouldn't be watching this.
The problem with this movie is there's not enough Jennifer in it. The producers make a rather poor attempt to make a proper movie instead of simply focusing on Ms Garner kicking the crap out of baddies. I mean imagine Die Hard with less Bruce Willis? It just doesn't work does it?
So basically this could be much better. It's OK but movie makers please take note. C grade actors and terrible plots don't sell movies. Hot women (or men) kicking ass does. If this had been done like Shoot 'em Up it would have rocked.
Robin Hood (2018)
It's awful
The worst movie I've ever tried to watch.
No kidding.
Hunter Killer (2018)
Fun but flat and ridiculously improbable.
If you like watching movies about modern weapon systems in action and don't care too much about realism then it's a bit of fun.
The plot is interesting but ruined by one-dimensional acting and lots of holes and lack of realism.
Coherence (2013)
An extremely interesting if somewhat contrived movie
If you like SciFi that makes you think then this is really worth a watch.
The basic idea is VERY interesting and I like the pace at which they present it. There's some reasonable performances and the characters for the most part are very believable. I understand the film was mostly improvised which makes it all the more remarkable, although it also explains some of the short-comings.
I'm not sure you can fully grasp this movie in a single viewing - as it progresses your understanding of what it going on increases - your brain will probably head down multiple cul-de-sacs, right up to and perhaps including the end. However, all of the stuff that you were paying attention to towards the end, was actually happening from the very beginning of the movie. Is ANYTHING, including the ending what it seems? Enough unanswered questions are left in the viewers mind to leave you uncertain as to whether the discrepancy is a flaw in the movie, or whether your understanding is lacking something! This means it's brilliant for post-movie discussion!
My first thought after watching the movie was that there were too many unbelievable situations - the behaviour of the characters didn't really stack up at times, but I now see that THAT is taken care of with one explanation of events.
I'll leave you with the thought that in a multiverse, every POSSIBLE scenario is accounted for - that includes a great number of highly unlikely scenarios. Like tossing a coin, there's a very low but finite possibility that it may land on its edge. It's possible in a multiverse, that one reality exists in which I manage that 8 times on the trot. You won't understand why I've written this until after you've watched the movie at least once, but then hopefully it may shed light on a few things - in particular the "extreme" behaviour of some of the characters.