I didn’t like the film, but it wasn’t sleazy, art-house porn but more just clunky - possibly deliberately so, but you could see the low budget - the lack of exteriors, the cheap backdrops and the bad make-up and the cutaways to avoid showing the violence. Both the cinematography and the acting were flat and lifeless and I came to the conclusion that it didn’t matter if that was deliberate or not - it was just badly done. A bit depressing, overall.
Girl: "I'm going to be alone for the rest of my life?" Simon: "Let's hope so". For anyone who ever doubts Simon's importance to these reviews, his timing and deadpan delivery makes comments like this sparkle.
Disney: "It's imperative that that the true name of the planet in John Carter is kept a secret from the audience until they watch the film for themselves in order to maintain the mystery behind the story." Kermode: "John Carter OF MARS!!"
I've not seen Tiny Furniture for quite a while, but remember finding it funny. The thing is, Mark Kermode is extremely cerebral and simply doesn't like (or get) what he calls "quirky" humour. It actually irritates him. He doesn't even like Scorsese's 'After Hours', or Miranda July's films. He does think 'Independence Day' is hilarious however, so his opinion on humour isn't worth anything to me.
2 was good too. Not as good as the first but still entertaining. 3 I have trouble even remembering anything from it. Just the one ubiquitous kids sing along..
At 2:51 I honestly thought it was a Mark Kermode impression because the background music abruptly cut out yet the dialogue still remained. It sounded a lot clearer as if recorded in a studio. Did they really bother to cut out the background music just so they could play the clip for a bit longer?
The film maybe long & underwritten, however the film’s well acted, stylish, well directed & A heart warming romantic dramedy. (69%) (3.5/5 stars) (positive)
The film’s well acted, well directed, stylish, intense & realistic as the film’s themes of analytical psychology is very well presented. (82%) (4/5 stars) (positive)
The film’s stylish, action packed, well scored & has some good acting, however some of the acting is dull & excessive, the film’ script is poor as the film becomes unfocused & long. (56%) (3/5 stars) (mixed)
The film’s well casted, well acted, stylish & well scored, however the film’s poorly directed, poorly written & the lack of originality & lack of focus is poor. (58%) (3/5 stars) (mixed)
The film has terrific acting, however the film’s poorly directed, poorly written, unfocused, not funny & is A ripoff from Lethal Weapon (1987). (26%) (1.5/5 stars) (negative)
The film maybe unfocused & slow, however the film’s well acted, well directed, stylish & A shockingly realistic crime thriller. (76%) (4/5 stars) (positive)
Leading actor Elizabeth Olsen delivers one of her best roles in this scarily realistic thriller that focuses well on its story, writing, characters & cult themes. (92%) (4.5/5 stars) (positive)
Whilst the film could be longer & better written, the film is still A well acted, realistic, funny & well directed comedy drama. (75%) (4/5 stars) (positive)
The film’s issues are its length & lack of storytelling, however the film’s still an emotional, well crafted, well acted, well scored & stylish. (78%) (4/5 stars) (positive)
The film is strongly intriguing, action packed, stylish, effective & is better then The Divergent (2014-2016) series & The Maze Runner (2014, 2015 & 2018) series. (90%) (4.5/5 stars) (positive)
The film is like The Exorcist (1973) & The Blair Witch Project (1999) put together but made into one of the worst films made. (0%) (0/5 stars) (negative)
The film is well casted, well acted, stylish, direction & well written teen action comedy film that focuses well on its story, humour & characters. (84%) (4/5 stars) (positive)
The film is generally A predictable, poorly directed, poorly written, poorly acted & lifeless thriller that’s one of the worst films made. (0%) (0/5 stars) (negative)
Despite good acting, good characters & visuals, the film suffers from its storytelling, dialogue, direction & can be unfavourably compared to From Hell (2001). (35%) (2/5 stars) (mixed to negative)
I was a bit down on it the first time i watched it but i just rewatched it and enjoyed it more the second time around. The anachronistic dialogue peppered in did annoy me as much as it did the first time but i found myself getting over that more and i was even willing to forgive the occasional incredibly ropey accent. Even from the guy who was supposed to be from Liverpool and had clearly never been anywhere near it in his life. I got over it all much quicker the second time, it didn't take me out of the film and make me go on a 10minute Mark-esque rant about why they hadn't just given that speaking part to someone else, or just have him be from some other port town a bit closer to his natural stomping ground. 2nd time was a charm.
