Nev's Reviews

What might be called a "B-grade" action flickpoorly combining the plots of many different movies. I thought the lack of colour was due to a choice of cheap film stock (no blues, and very grey greens) that had fadede. Then I saw it had been made in 2007 (and Lundgreen's wrinkles confirmed this). When I saw my first green after 20 minutes, I thought Lundgreen was doing a Branagh and letting the colour seep in to show hope rising. This was not the case. It seems Lundgreen was trying for a film noir effect, and this failed.

I saw this fllm on TV early in 2010. I asked for the DVD because I noticed that one question was unanswered. Watching the DVD showed me that many more cuts were made for this release. The DVD opens with the bank robber, (Dalton played by Clive Owen) speaking from a prison cell, to describe what happened. The next major character is detective Frazier (played by Denzil Washington). He is soon followed by Ms White (a confidential negotiator, played by Jodie Foster). Dalton has hatched a complex scheme to rob a bank, Frazier tries to catch him and free his hostages while facing charges on corruption, while White wants to protect some nasty information hidden in the bank by its founder. I do not wish to spoil the plot, so I will be enigmatic. The film has two obvious problems. Firstly, the robbers are seen digging a hole through the floor of the vault (and hiding their efforts), but the purpose of the hole is lost in the cutting. Secondly, Frazier is seen making a deal with White about his supposed malfeasance, but a later scene shows him playing a tape of the negotiations on which the voice of the mayor appears. What is more irksome is that the TV version has extra scenes. Dalton's presence in the prison cell is explained, by virtue of a totally different ending that ties together a number of clues left in the both versions of the film. Frazier's innocence or guilt is left hanging (although he is exonerated, thanks to MS White) in the DVD but made clear in the film. Still left unexplained is the hole in the floor of the vault, though. I have given it only three stars due to these errors, but I still think the film is compelling watching. The longer version screened on TV would have received a higher rating, though (in spite the hole in the floor still being unexplained).

Probably on of the worst movies I have seen. In spite of the big name cast, including John Hurt , Sam Neill and Ernie Dingo (none mentioned on the disc cover), it was bad (sorry, Paul). It seemed to comprise the worst of French and Australian film protocols: show the viewer that he/she is a moronic philistine for not enjoying being preached at. I forced myself to watch 30 minutes before dipping into the rest to try to find some entertainment. I didn't. Self-abuse is more enjoyable.

Early on, we are shown a scene of a weather station run by the US Navy. One character is a lieutenant. He is wearing a blue shirt that is Air Force, collar insignia that are a US Army captain's (two bars, but too widely spaced for a navy lieutenant), and on his sleeves he is wearing what appear to be corporal chevrons but are not worn by any US military. The film goes downwards from this wardrobe malfunction.

It is a light movie, but far better cinematography than I would expect from such a low-budget film. The plot was interesting, and actually still topical. There was none of the painful preaching usually associated with such a film. Also none of the overacting. My main quibble was that the antagonist was named "Neville", and as much as he was as cool, calm, collected, thoughtful and handsome as I am, I hate my name being used in such a cavalier fashion

Seems to be based on a videogame, and not well done. Barely worth watching, with poor and telegraphed acting and plot.

Very good film. My only objection is that the "demise" of the "hero" was ambiguous. The clues were not dwelled on enough, and a bit more expression from Tommy Lee Jones when he saw the last clue would have made things clearer.

Not typical Seagal fair. One problem was that after editing, the sound needed to be redubbed, and Seagal would not do his voiceovers. I some scenes, the voice is not even a poor imitation of his. I could not finish the movie - Seagal's voice is a big part of his character, and it was missing too often.

Introduction of Captain Jack in the 3rd and 4th spisodes explains why he is such a character in Torchwood. Explains a lot.

Good film, true to its aim. But you have to watch for at least three short clues to a probable ending that is just a possibility but not shown.

This film was rotoscoped and animated, so it appears as a rough animation. But it was shot in full costume, ready for the addition of special effects. The main theme of the film is about identity, losing it and finding it. The young producer was conned by Dick, though. Phil Dick is completely immersed in his work, to the point of psychosis. The animation was not necessary, but Dick wanted it to reinforce the "loss of identity" idea. Thus was the film screwed in spite of good acting and direction. It is interesting to watch the actors o the commentaries praise the film idea ridiculously, to hide the fact they were duped LOL. It was not a good cartoon at all.

Until I saw this film, I had never heard of the GM EV1 or the Toyota RAV4 EV. The comment made that the new developments in battery technology are owned by Texaco (Caltex here) makes sense. In 2006, the CSIRO developed a better way of making solar cells using the then technology. It designed new solar cell configurations that had then times the amperage per surface area, but at a third the cost per amp, using current technology. Then BP Solar introduced new solar cell processes that only slightly increased the amperage per unit of surface area over its old design, and the CSIRO configurations vanished. This film says a lot about the forces that keep us dependent on oil.

I could not finish watching it. The angst was too great. Are all Australians suffering such emotional problems, or just our actors?

I had trouble watching the whole thing. Not as good as the first film.

Npt as good as the first three films. Lots of action and special effects. A good finale to the character, though

Not as good as "Signs", but very much a complete MNS movie. Zooey Deschanel was disappointing, not as calm and expert as in "Tinman" or as "loving" as "500 Days". Definitely worth watching, if only to be shown again the basic stupidity of humanity, as shown in a damn god movie. I would have appreciated a commentary, though..

More like a video game than a movie. Some nice one-liners. Worth watching.

Good finish for the series. Feel good ending.

Average for a wand and wizardry teleflick. Does not seem to do justice to Leguin's books. Amanda Tapping must have been paid the highest fee for a 3-second cameo (and still score a supporting actress credit).

Poor cinematography, confused plot.

Amanda Tapping's loss is a bummer. Plots are still good, but it seems to have lost something since last season's cliffhanger.

This movie is deliberately light mutedly. It also seems confusing. The director explains that the movie is actually a magic trick all on its own. He makes a comment that after seeing it, you need to see it again, to see how all the elements lead to the exposition, and how the structure of the movie is part of another magic trick. The actors are good, but it is the sum of the acting, the plot, the story and the production that makes the movie. You must persevere to the end, and see how it all hangs together, how the climax of the movie revealed at the beginning is not the real climax. It deserves its highest rating from me.

Better than the second, but not quite up to the first. The 1-minute appearance of the marauders let it down by being poor CGI. The religious aspect and poor military discipline were not handled well.

Not as good as the first. To much SFX and not enough story.

Unlike other sequels, this movie actually surpasses the earlier films. It is not a matter of better animation, but the lot and character seem less forced, more human. It is as if using cartoon characters let us feel the humanity of the characters, and not be put of by them being human. Shrek 2 seemed like a parody, but 3 is a cinema classic.

A little confusing, and a bit heavy on the martial arts. No subtitles, but beautiful cinematography.

This is the penultimate year for this series. Brannon Braga has a steady hand on the helm, Roddenberry is gone to find the truth about the afterlife, and most of the scripts have improved (a process started Rick's by the short tenure). At this point, the series is well worth watching. But the excruciating agony of the first three years is hard to forget.

It wasn't until I saw Shayne highlighted as a comedian after Kenny aired that I realised he was an acor, and Kenny was a comedy film, not a documentary. Ftrankly, it weill long be considered as a classic mfilm, aired for decades to come. If yoiu have not seen it, do so now. I am very selective in what I see, and when I say that I have no hesitatioin in giving this film 5 stars, you know I am serious.

A good telemovie, tying up some loose ends, and paving the way for the illfated next five years.

The "special features" of this DVD include interviews with the principals. Roddenberry clasimes that TNG came about because someone approached him with the new notion of "syndication", which would reduce a network's control of the show. This is a lie. Rodddenberry had been aware of the importance of syndication before the genesis of the original series. e simply never thought of doing it for Star Trek, preferring to stick with the old idea of relying on a network's support. The reliance on "tried and true" ideas runs throughout the first season: old script ideas, old techniques in lighting and conematography, and some incredibly poor science. Season 2 so far is much better.

The same as other season 1 offerings. Just one good scriupt. Cinematography and lighting and special effects show no advance in ideas in 20 years (since TOS). At least Michael Okuda is getting a foot n the water.

I found this almost unwatchable. Richard Manning's episode was good. The acting is still uneven, and the characters too unreal.

Roddenberry's influence looms large. This is a 1960s show with plots and acting and direction styles, from that era with no better special effects that TOS, using 1980s money. For example, characters still insist on moving while the transporter is still operating.

An excelent movie, with a decent plot, with the expected excesses in this genre toned down to a watchable level by the money people. Better than the previous attempt. Don't forget the commentary!

Excellent attempt to recapture the times, as we seem to think they are. Good acting and good plot and a well-paced film.

Faster and and more coherent than season 1.