I'm a fan of the Forensic Files series, but when there is a miscarriage of Justice, I have to speak out. The evidence in this episode proves that a person who drove around with a knife in his trousers, looking for vulnerable females, was attacked. However, this pervert was found not guilty of murdering the person defending his next victim. It's a terrible episode. You watch this knowing that there is a serial rapist and murderer allowed to go free to commit atrocities again.
Reviews
25 Reviews
Highly Dubious Episode of 'Forensic Files'
11 January 2019
Warning: Spoilers
This episode starts with a young woman leaving her family and marrying a deeply religious guy in Georgia.
He wakes up one morning and finds her dead, with bruises on her body and haemorrahaging in her eyes.
The community says the must have killed his wife.
The episode is all about how, although it appeared on the surface as if he did, he didn't strangle her to death, because it turns out she was epileptic, and he had convinced her to stop taking her medication, and trusted in God to heal her.
At the end, the authorities say how remarkable science is because it proved she wasn't strangled, she had just had a fatal epileptic seizure, and therefore her husband hadn't killed her.
The thing is, her husband DID kill her, because he's the one who made her stop taking the medication that would have managed the epilepsy.
Terrible episode of Forensic Files. Deeply disappointing.
What We Did on Our Holiday
(2014)
Fantastic Performances
21 July 2018
The script is pretty rubbish; it's something that was obviously written by high school students.
However, the performances are fantastic. Every single actor puts in an amazing effort; and Emilia Jones is a standout, for her age. Worth watching just to appreciate the performers. Not the story, that's awful.
However, the performances are fantastic. Every single actor puts in an amazing effort; and Emilia Jones is a standout, for her age. Worth watching just to appreciate the performers. Not the story, that's awful.
Girlfriend's Day
(2017)
How a director can screw an entire movie
2 April 2018
The script, the actors, the production values here are excellent.
There's just one thing that ruins it.
The director. Michael Paul Stephenson decided "I want this to be a slice of life movie", instead of a film noir movie. He could have made this artistic and hilarious, bu the decided instead to screw the entire production over. The guy just totally ruined what could have been a fantastic film.
He's a dickhead. Watch this film and try to imagine it much darker, much more stylized, and like an homage to the 1940s/1950s films of Fred McMurray, Humphrey Bogart. Laurent Bacall and Ingrid Bergman. This could have been so much better. SO much better.
There's just one thing that ruins it.
The director. Michael Paul Stephenson decided "I want this to be a slice of life movie", instead of a film noir movie. He could have made this artistic and hilarious, bu the decided instead to screw the entire production over. The guy just totally ruined what could have been a fantastic film.
He's a dickhead. Watch this film and try to imagine it much darker, much more stylized, and like an homage to the 1940s/1950s films of Fred McMurray, Humphrey Bogart. Laurent Bacall and Ingrid Bergman. This could have been so much better. SO much better.
Drive
(I) (2011)
Great news for High School Students
30 March 2018
This title was obviously written by a high school student who had never seen a movie made before 2000! Great news for all teenagers, because apparently they can get movies made from really basic scripts. With top notch actors, as well.
Awful, awful script. Great cast and crew otherwise. But just a badly written script. That's all.
Awful, awful script. Great cast and crew otherwise. But just a badly written script. That's all.
The Jaquie Brown Diaries
(2008–2009)
Badly written, unfunny "comedy"
18 January 2017
Jacqui Brown had a good sense of humour, but unfortunately she agreed to work with terrible scriptwriters to come up with this rubbish. It's well-acted, directed, and production values are very good. There are some great cultural references, and if you're a New Zealander then you may appreciate some of the in-jokes with the entertainment community, but New Zealand script-writing for television has always been terrible; and the New Zealand entertainment community has always been about in- jokes that nobody else finds amusing. This is no exception. Completely unfunny, and it was stale humour five years before it was written. New Zealand entertainment has for decades refused to investigate talent, and this is another example.
The Love Guru
(2008)
A Bad Idea From The Beginning
4 July 2008
In 2003, there was an awful movie called "The Guru" with Heather Graham and Marisa Tomei. It was one of the most unfunny comedies in history, trying to blend annoying characters with clichéd dialogue and a worthless plot. Mike Myers may have seen it, and for some bizarre reason, decided to remake it. What a massive mistake that was. THIS movie is even worse! I didn't think that was possible! I can't wait for Mike Myers to remake other bad movies such as "Kazaam", "Freddy Got Fingered" and "From Justin to Kelly". Seriously, what with this film, "Cat in the Hat" and "View From The Top", it's like the guy is actually TRYING to end his career. Incredible.
Committed
(2005)
This is the stereotypical bad American comedy
12 February 2007
It's like the writers went looking for the worst, most obvious "jokes". Part of me thinks they're going for the "it's so bad it's good" angle, but then the laugh-track seems to indicate that it's so bad, it's bad. Bad acting, bad writing, bad directing ... it's overwhelmingly bad. Why inflict this upon the world? I don't know. Tom Poston appears, he was average in the Bob Newhart show, and yet suspiciously he comes up in other shows. Not sure why, he's not funny or talented. This is not politically incorrect, but it's humorously incorrect, too. Possibly an 8 year old wrote it. Doesn't explain why the actors wanted to be in this. They're attractive, there's no doubt about it, but they're just untalented. There's so little talent in this, I couldn't understand it. Don't watch this and then the movie "Airplane" (/ "Flying High") ... you'll realise just how bad television has become. Sad, but true.
Waking the Dead
(2000–2011)
The Downfall of English Drama
4 January 2004
I saw an episode of this entitled "A Simple Sacrifice", and it was, basically, badly written, badly acted and badly directed. It was like watching somebody create a show with the theme "murder mystery with twist". I can't believe how incredibly silly it was. I love British Drama ... "A Touch of Frost", "Inspector Morse" ... murder mysteries are rarely done as well as in British television. However, *this* is just generic rubbish. If you want anything approaching quality, then avoid at least this story, if not this show.
Being Eve
(2001–2002)
Second Season
12 April 2003
The "Being Eve" crew have made some improvements since its disastrous first season.
Unlike its predecessor, which pretended to be a comedy and come away as embarrassingly silly, the second season aims to be a drama with quirky moments, and this is where it can be proud of itself. The show is being aimed directly at teenagers, rather than shooting blindly at all age groups, and actually manages to come across with some interesting themes.
Unfortunately, the show did not bring on new writers, and so the dialogue is still very stilted, and the adult characters are so badly written it makes me cringe. I actually feel sorry for the adult actors as they are forced to say their silly lines and act out the idiotic plot-lines they are given.
The teens, however, come across as more believable, although it is obvious that some are still trying to get under the skin of their characters rather than just play up when the camera starts rolling. However the main characters are likeable, and it is obvious the actors are really trying - and what with the better plot-lines for the teens, this is actually turning into a watchable show.
Unlike its predecessor, which pretended to be a comedy and come away as embarrassingly silly, the second season aims to be a drama with quirky moments, and this is where it can be proud of itself. The show is being aimed directly at teenagers, rather than shooting blindly at all age groups, and actually manages to come across with some interesting themes.
Unfortunately, the show did not bring on new writers, and so the dialogue is still very stilted, and the adult characters are so badly written it makes me cringe. I actually feel sorry for the adult actors as they are forced to say their silly lines and act out the idiotic plot-lines they are given.
The teens, however, come across as more believable, although it is obvious that some are still trying to get under the skin of their characters rather than just play up when the camera starts rolling. However the main characters are likeable, and it is obvious the actors are really trying - and what with the better plot-lines for the teens, this is actually turning into a watchable show.
Dressing for Breakfast
(1995–1998)
Stunningly Stupid British Comedy
20 May 2002
I remember when British comedy was innovative, such as "The Good Life" or "Are You Being Served", or "Dad's Army", or "Red Dwarf". Apparently now, however, all you need to do is go to a kindergarten and listen to the jokes they tell there, write a script based on that, and develop a show around it. That's what this show is all about, get drunk, find stupid jokes, and pay people to recite your script in front of cameras. This show is the perfect example of why people are better off turning off their television set and turn on a computer.
It was so bad I almost cried
26 February 2002
A badly written TV movie, with cliches in every second line, and silly characters in every other. If there is a choice between watching this, and waxing your legs, go for the body hair every time. There isn't any originality to this, it's like somebody watched a group of "whodunnits" and took the most boring parts out of each. There are only a couple of redeeming features, like the acting, but it's not enough to make me want to watch this again.
Being Eve
(2001–2002)
Another Badly Written Waste of TV Time
29 October 2001
This series claims to be an original teenage comedy/slice of life show, but in truth, it is anything but. There is nothing humourous about this "comedy", which only has a vague connection to teenage reality, and it would only be original if it was done decades ago. If there is anything to be learned from "Being Eve", it is that New Zealand needs fresh, talented blood in its television writing department, and it needs it *now*.
Excellent Performances as Always
4 June 2001
... but the main problem with *this* episode in the long-running Taggart series is that the suspicion is thrown onto *so* many characters, that when you finally find out who the villain is, it's hard to believe. Otherwise, it has a slow beginning, but soon gets chugging along.
Striking Distance
(1993)
How are movies like this made?
10 September 2000
So this script comes from two writers, one of whom did nothing special, the other helped adapt a play for the big screen and did "A Distinguished Gentleman". The director has done nothing special. So how do they get to be the core creative force behind a movie? Why not get somebody with talent to at least oversee the project? Do they drag people off the street to write screenplays now? This is extremely frustrating, how many talented people are ignored so that high-school drop-outs can write for the big screen?
The film starts off being a dated, cliched police thriller. And that's as good as it gets. It says something about the careers of all the actors involved - they must either be desperate, or they'll do *anything* for money.
If you're the kind of person who still can't work out how sundials work, or if you're *really* drunk, then you may enjoy this predictable, unthinking movie. However, if you like a little imagination and plausibility in a production, avoid this like the plague!
The film starts off being a dated, cliched police thriller. And that's as good as it gets. It says something about the careers of all the actors involved - they must either be desperate, or they'll do *anything* for money.
If you're the kind of person who still can't work out how sundials work, or if you're *really* drunk, then you may enjoy this predictable, unthinking movie. However, if you like a little imagination and plausibility in a production, avoid this like the plague!
Bonjour Timothy
(1995)
Not The Worst Movie You'll Ever See
25 August 2000
The idea is pretty average, but at least it had potential. Imagine what could have been accomplished if they'd had a script that didn't appear to be written by a kindergarten student.
Seriously, the actors seem to go about the first half of the movie making things up as they go along. The second half of the movie attempts to put things right, but never gets going the way it should. Good actors would have trouble with a script this bad, so it's no wonder that actors of THIS quality come across as being completely c**p.
Surely not all New Zealand's writing and film making talent has gone overseas ... because if this is what it's left with, they're in big, big trouble.
Seriously, the actors seem to go about the first half of the movie making things up as they go along. The second half of the movie attempts to put things right, but never gets going the way it should. Good actors would have trouble with a script this bad, so it's no wonder that actors of THIS quality come across as being completely c**p.
Surely not all New Zealand's writing and film making talent has gone overseas ... because if this is what it's left with, they're in big, big trouble.
The Full Monty
(1997)
Have to take the good with the bad
20 August 2000
A blatant rip-off of a successful New Zealand play that toured Britain in the early 1990s. Some of the scenes are almost identical, although the screenplay writer of The Full Monty substitutes some bland dialogue where the original had some very witty lines.
This film certainly has its moments, but not nearly enough to make it an enjoyable watch on a rainy Sunday night.
This film certainly has its moments, but not nearly enough to make it an enjoyable watch on a rainy Sunday night.
Meet Joe Black
(1998)
Want to see a movie not even Anthony Hopkins can save?
1 August 2000
And I'm not talking about "The Edge", either.
The cinematography is very good. Set, costumes, music, sound. The direction isn't bad, and some actors give stand out performances (not Brad Pitt or Claire Forlani, but excellent performances from Hopkins, Tambor and Weber seem to even things out).
However, the script is absolutely appalling. The screenplay is credited to four writers, and you can see why. Each one probably took over as the other got bored with it.
The tag-line in my TV guide said "Death takes a holiday and makes a deal with a dying billionaire". It takes about an hour to establish this premise. That's it, just establishing it. Then, apparently, Death falls in love with the billionaire's daughter. Well, how or why Death does this isn't explained, but it's certainly made easy when the daughter is written as a slut. A slutty billionaire's daughter getting her just deserts? That would make an interesting movie.
At just under three hours, this is an agonising movie ... I was forced to fast forward, and ended up with a terrible ending that involved Death pretending to be a member of the IRS. What the hell was that?
Look, seriously, take the screenwriters, tie them up in a basement somewhere, and make sure nobody feeds them. Please, for mercy's sake.
The cinematography is very good. Set, costumes, music, sound. The direction isn't bad, and some actors give stand out performances (not Brad Pitt or Claire Forlani, but excellent performances from Hopkins, Tambor and Weber seem to even things out).
However, the script is absolutely appalling. The screenplay is credited to four writers, and you can see why. Each one probably took over as the other got bored with it.
The tag-line in my TV guide said "Death takes a holiday and makes a deal with a dying billionaire". It takes about an hour to establish this premise. That's it, just establishing it. Then, apparently, Death falls in love with the billionaire's daughter. Well, how or why Death does this isn't explained, but it's certainly made easy when the daughter is written as a slut. A slutty billionaire's daughter getting her just deserts? That would make an interesting movie.
At just under three hours, this is an agonising movie ... I was forced to fast forward, and ended up with a terrible ending that involved Death pretending to be a member of the IRS. What the hell was that?
Look, seriously, take the screenwriters, tie them up in a basement somewhere, and make sure nobody feeds them. Please, for mercy's sake.
The Postman
(1997)
pray nobody makes another movie like this
22 July 2000
Let me help you visualise how this film was made. Somebody said "I'd like to make a movie based on the idea of how the US Postal Service is a good idea, it just needs restructuring." Unfortunately, rather than give it to the "TV Movie of the Week" people, they gave it to Kevin Costner.
"I want this movie to have people in the aisles, screaming GOD BLESS AMERICA", he must have said. "I want patriotism! I want to throw in as many classical references as I can, the plot isn't important. I also want to have sex scenes with a very attractive woman, preferably somebody else's wife. Oh, and let's make it over two and a half hours long."
And there you have it. This is designed only for Americans to be able to sit through, and I doubt if even they could manage it for the full length of the film. There aren't enough ideas for 60 minutes, let alone 165. The moral of the story seems to be "God bless this country", but it will have most people screaming "God, why, oh why?"
"I want this movie to have people in the aisles, screaming GOD BLESS AMERICA", he must have said. "I want patriotism! I want to throw in as many classical references as I can, the plot isn't important. I also want to have sex scenes with a very attractive woman, preferably somebody else's wife. Oh, and let's make it over two and a half hours long."
And there you have it. This is designed only for Americans to be able to sit through, and I doubt if even they could manage it for the full length of the film. There aren't enough ideas for 60 minutes, let alone 165. The moral of the story seems to be "God bless this country", but it will have most people screaming "God, why, oh why?"
Lost in Space
(1998)
Cashing in on the old TV show & big special effects
19 July 2000
Having watched this movie, it's easy to believe a producer and writer, sitting drunk at a table one night, saying "Hey ... how about this. Lost in Space movie. Throw in some well known faces, some big special effects, a cute overly shiny alien, and something about time travel. Doesn't need to make sense."
The actors have done well, considering the script is full of cliches and plotholes, and none turn in bad performances. In fact, without William Hurt and Gary Oldman, the movie would have been far worse. The special effects, the costumes, set design are all very well done, but the failure of the movie comes down to the bad script. Besides taking lines directly out of other movies (Back to the Future is just one ... "where the hell ..." "the question is WHEN the hell ..."), and phrases that were considered well-worn when the original series was around, there are "huggy moments" throughout the script which makes you feel the writer is beating you over the head with a "warm fuzzy hammer". Penny's problems magically solved? West and Judy finally realising they like each other after all? Father and son reaffirming their love? It's like a mix between Plan 9 From Outer Space and Steel Magnolias.
And don't even think about the poor "time travel / alternate universe" scenario. There are so many contradictions and badly-thought out ideas surrounding that, it could physically injure you if you tried to contemplate it for too long.
A sequel isn't as terrifying an idea as it may first sound ... with the same cast and crew, it may even be enjoyable. But please, a better script next time, for goodness sake.
The actors have done well, considering the script is full of cliches and plotholes, and none turn in bad performances. In fact, without William Hurt and Gary Oldman, the movie would have been far worse. The special effects, the costumes, set design are all very well done, but the failure of the movie comes down to the bad script. Besides taking lines directly out of other movies (Back to the Future is just one ... "where the hell ..." "the question is WHEN the hell ..."), and phrases that were considered well-worn when the original series was around, there are "huggy moments" throughout the script which makes you feel the writer is beating you over the head with a "warm fuzzy hammer". Penny's problems magically solved? West and Judy finally realising they like each other after all? Father and son reaffirming their love? It's like a mix between Plan 9 From Outer Space and Steel Magnolias.
And don't even think about the poor "time travel / alternate universe" scenario. There are so many contradictions and badly-thought out ideas surrounding that, it could physically injure you if you tried to contemplate it for too long.
A sequel isn't as terrifying an idea as it may first sound ... with the same cast and crew, it may even be enjoyable. But please, a better script next time, for goodness sake.
Amazing Stories
(1985–1987)
Some mediocre, some incredible
14 July 2000
Some "amazing stories" were actually just rehashes of old ideas, but some, such as "The Mission", were superbly written, directed, and are worth seeking out. To add to their appeal, some top-notch actors are involved to bring an extra dimension to the story. Worth seeing.
Star Trek: Insurrection
(1998)
The Odd Numbered "Curse"?
22 June 2000
The odd-numbered episodes of the Star Trek franchise seem to have the reputation of not being as good as the even-numbered. The original movie, the Final Frontier and Generations would seem to confirm this, compared to classics as Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home and the brilliant First Contact.
However, for this viewer, it is obviously a division between "TV stories" and "cinema stories". Khan, Voyage Home and First Contact were films to be seen in a movie complex. The screen was full of action, the shots were made to be seen in wide-screen mode. Whereas in Generations, and even the original movie etc, you could see them on television, and not lose the whole scope of the intended look.
Let me make this clear. The script, the acting, the special effects, the costumes and the direction are just as good in this movie as they were in First Contact. But whereas First Contact should be best seen at the movies, this movie can be seen at home on video. You won't lose anything really. Jonathan Frakes should be congratulated on his scope of direction ... he can move between "cinema" and "television" stories very well.
So, it all depends on where you view the show. If you rent this movie on video or see it on television, go for it. If you hear it's at the movies again for a special showing ... well, rent it instead.
However, for this viewer, it is obviously a division between "TV stories" and "cinema stories". Khan, Voyage Home and First Contact were films to be seen in a movie complex. The screen was full of action, the shots were made to be seen in wide-screen mode. Whereas in Generations, and even the original movie etc, you could see them on television, and not lose the whole scope of the intended look.
Let me make this clear. The script, the acting, the special effects, the costumes and the direction are just as good in this movie as they were in First Contact. But whereas First Contact should be best seen at the movies, this movie can be seen at home on video. You won't lose anything really. Jonathan Frakes should be congratulated on his scope of direction ... he can move between "cinema" and "television" stories very well.
So, it all depends on where you view the show. If you rent this movie on video or see it on television, go for it. If you hear it's at the movies again for a special showing ... well, rent it instead.
Last Action Hero
(1993)
Intelligent Action
20 June 2000
A possible reason why this movie hasn't been received well by some people is probably the exact reason why The Long Kiss Goodnight (1996) had trouble. It's two genres merging. Action movies are tending to be more and more no-brainer affairs ... people sit and vegetate while watching characters blown apart onscreen. And then there are the "dramas". Movies intended to make people think, and sit on the edge of their seat wondering what plot-twist will occur next, while the writers work to surprise the viewers with every turn. Nobody expected an intelligent action movie ... but that's what happened with both TLKG and The Last Action Hero.
Firstly, the writing is first-class. Shane Black (creator of the Lethal Weapon Characters, and writer of TLKG) et al create a rare situation of a movie-within-a-movie, managing to create what would have been a good action movie AND poke intelligent fun at it at the same time. It's even very witty!
The casting is great, too. Arnold Schwarzenegger actually comes across as witty, which has to be a reason to watch for. And if you don't like that, there are the classy performances of F. Murray Abraham, Charles Dance, and a very good performance by young Austin O'Brien. There are assorted star cameos and movie references! There's even Danny Devito as the voice of a cartoon cat! What more could you want?
The action is great, the special effects are good, and there's even Joan Plowright and Sir Ian McKellen!
It's a movie with action, intelligence, humour AND an important theme! If only more movies could be like this!
Firstly, the writing is first-class. Shane Black (creator of the Lethal Weapon Characters, and writer of TLKG) et al create a rare situation of a movie-within-a-movie, managing to create what would have been a good action movie AND poke intelligent fun at it at the same time. It's even very witty!
The casting is great, too. Arnold Schwarzenegger actually comes across as witty, which has to be a reason to watch for. And if you don't like that, there are the classy performances of F. Murray Abraham, Charles Dance, and a very good performance by young Austin O'Brien. There are assorted star cameos and movie references! There's even Danny Devito as the voice of a cartoon cat! What more could you want?
The action is great, the special effects are good, and there's even Joan Plowright and Sir Ian McKellen!
It's a movie with action, intelligence, humour AND an important theme! If only more movies could be like this!
Wild Wild West
(1999)
Kline and Branagh succeed
3 June 2000
Kevin Kline and Kenneth Branagh's performances are the only reason to see this film. The directing is quite bland, and the script is abysmal, but Kline and Barangh rise above these extreme disadvantages. If you're going to see this movie, watch it just for them - they're great, as usual.
Jubilee
(2000)
Stunningly bad
8 May 2000
If punch-lines you heard when you were a small child, two-dimensional characters, far-fetched plot and teeth-grindingly bad dialogue is entertaining for you, then this is YOUR movie! If not, then avoid it at all costs.
The premise of the organisation of a small town jubilee sounds like a good basis for a comfortable comedy, but the script and direction of the movie flickers between both comedy and serious drama so quickly, one is not certain whether to laugh at the misfortunes of these characters, or treat the movie so seriously that all its charm goes out the window.
Jubilee is based on a book which probably should be read instead of seeing the film - there is a lot more time for interesting and believable writing (and three dimensional characters) in a book. The "jokes" are childish, old, and weren't particularly good when they were new, either. The only humorous thing about this movie is that the makers somehow convinced people handed over money to watch it in the cinema.
The premise of the organisation of a small town jubilee sounds like a good basis for a comfortable comedy, but the script and direction of the movie flickers between both comedy and serious drama so quickly, one is not certain whether to laugh at the misfortunes of these characters, or treat the movie so seriously that all its charm goes out the window.
Jubilee is based on a book which probably should be read instead of seeing the film - there is a lot more time for interesting and believable writing (and three dimensional characters) in a book. The "jokes" are childish, old, and weren't particularly good when they were new, either. The only humorous thing about this movie is that the makers somehow convinced people handed over money to watch it in the cinema.
Tell Your Friends