Search results

New director Mike Newell concentrates (like the book) more on character development than story as the plot remains stationery for the first half of the film. Fans of the book will relish the mature handling of the character’s major steps into adolescence but others will only be really woken up...

The franchise got a little darker with this instalment; here, there’s a skilful blend of gothic drama and light-hearted teen angst as the relationships develop further. It may be just marking time for the final two-hander but, on it’s own merits, it’s a terrific piece of entertainment. Pick of...

It concentrates more on body shock scares (ala Cronenberg) than the unseen omni-presence of the original. Rob Bottin’s revolting special effects are undoubtedly the star of the show but director Carpenter also cranks up the feeling of paranoia as the differing character begin to turn on each...

I've been pleasantly surprised too. It has a knowing, wry humour with its cultural references, similar to JANE THE VIRGIN.

Mediocre seventh entry in the series suffers from an ordinary script which never allows the characters to properly come to life (Spock and Sulu are conspicuous by their absence). Plus points: the special effects and magnetic presence of Patrick Stewart (legend!).

Yeah, I totally agree with Carol. Best of the lot; Alfonso Cuaron put his own stamp on it.

It's badly hampered by laborious plotting and vacant performances but it's not as godawful as some would have you believe, imo. At best it’s mildly diverting but- on a whole- a misfire. Shyamalan’s career continued on its downward trajectory, but LADY IN THE WATER was much worse than this, I...

I think the director Chris Columbus was so eager to please fans that he was afraid to leave anything out in the editing room. So we had 2 and a half hours, which was way too long.

I agree that Le Carre definitely trumps Fleming- on film, that is. The Brosnan Bond films were, on reflection, fairly average, but CASINO ROYALE and SKYFALL with Daniel Craig were terrific. You should give them a whirl, Carol.

I think this may be the weakest film of the lot. And the running time is ridiculous/oppressive:emoji_zzz:

Haha. That would be, arguably, unwatchable. Those accents would be too much!!:emoji_no_mouth:

My main reason for using this site is that it has genuinely mature forums/discussions especially re older/classic movies. It seems to be quite well moderated too. I've yet to encounter any aggressive trolling.:emoji_clap:

Yep I have a DVD collection of his early stuff. Half of it is silent so it doesn't really give off too much of a flavourful London vibe (of the time).

That's so great to hear. Was hoping it'd be good. I've missed McShane bigtime since Al Schweringen was taken off the air!!

Does the song "Wherever I Will Go" by The Calling count as a one hit wonder. I can't really remember any other hits that they had.:emoji_confused:

Hitchcock has to be the most un-Essex boy you'd ever see. First time I'd seem him described as that. It cracked me up. Thanks Carol!:emoji_laughing:

I think this padded out entry gave Radcliffe, Watson and Grint the best opportunity yet to showcase their acting talents. That's what I got out of it anyway. The three of them carried the whole film on their shoulders.

THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS was hacked to pieces behind Orson Welles' back and is still a masterpiece. I'm assuming his cut would've been even better!

Sadistic delirium is the order of the day in writer/director Zombie’s violent but superior follow-up to HOUSE OF 1,000 CORPSES. The dist-urbed Firefly clan become the hunted as one particular cop shows himself to be just as cruel. His blood-thirsty need for revenge encapsulates the movie’s core...

Gleefully sadistic, giddy nod to 1970s shockers, especially TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE. Unfortunately, it ends up being stuck between being purely nasty and going for a more tongue-in-cheek approach.