Pegasus7 Reviews

Maxine (2022)

Terrible casting

[2/10 · 14 October 2023]

Lead Scottish actor could not shake his Scottish accent which kept bleeding through. Very mis-cast.

This really put me off watching the rest of the mini series, the two main actors were just not believable in their roles.

I don't feel that the story gave any further insight into the mind and motives of Maxine Carr, and it didn't add anything to the case.

Ultimately it was not that great, but the mis-casting of (in particular) a Scottish actor who cannot "do" accents was really bad and it prevented me from enjoying this drama.

Would have been much better with a different lead actor (and actress).

Quicksand (IV) (2023)

This is bad

[2/10 · 8 September 2023]

Bad film.

Honestly bad.

Bad acting (save for one actor who was the Spanish friend, wish he had been in it more, he seemed like the only one who had perhaps had more than high school acting lessons at some point).

Bad script, bad effects.

Horrible.

I was wishing my sofa would turn into quicksand about 20 minutes in so that I would be spared the horror and boredom of watching the rest of this movie.

The entire movie became a laughing stock when the wife decides to use a dead snake to lasso the rock. Not to mention that at some points the "quicksand" literally looks like brown water that they could swim in.

The cover of the DVD gives the impression that this is an exciting movie. It's not.

It's about as exciting as .....quicksand.

Curse of the Witching Tree (2015)

SCARY! (acting, direction and sound, that is!)

[1/10 · 28 August 2023]

What UTTER drivel.

The acting is like something out of a school play.

I am almost certain that some parts of the sound are dubbed over by other actors, because the voices don't look as if they are coming from the actors in real time, it looks like a bad dubbing job done after production had wrapped.

The Mother looks inexplicably about 5 years older than the daughter. It just didn't make any sense.

The plot was utter garbage, so many plot holes and unanswered questions that I won't even begin to address them here.

Do not waste your time on this complete pile of pig swill.

One of the worst horror films I have seen in a while.

Black Mirror: Loch Henry (2023) Season 6, Episode 2

Cannot get past the AWFUL Scottish accents

[3/10 · 17 July 2023]

WHY WHY WHY do they insist upon casting non-Scottish people in these roles? I could not get past the first ten minutes of this tale, listening to the terrible accents of the the son and the mother, neither of whom are Scottish or could do even a mediocre Scottish accent. As a Scot I am maybe noticing it more than someone else would, but it just pulls you right out of the film. BAD. Note to director - get a Scot to listen to the actors before filming, if they start to laugh, hire another actor.

Not even sure what the story is about because the crappy accents are putting me off watching this story.

Play Dead (2022)

FAILS on the ridiculous premise in first 10 minutes

[1/10 · 20 March 2023]

Anyone with an ounce of medical knowledge knows that the first 10 minutes of this film is garbage.

She uses Propofol to induce some sort of coma state, where she is declared to be dead and ends up in the morgue.

Big problem....... Propofol wears off after about 5-10 minutes, and she injected it IM (intra muscular) which does NOT work with propofol which is an IV only medication. Not only that, she would have woken up in about 10 minutes (even if an IM injection of propofol had worked).

THEN, not only do some apparently incompetent medics declare her dead (despite her having a pulse and resp rate), and she ends up in the morgue?

What a pile of unadulterated crap, and I'm not even 10 minutes into the film.

Seriously, 5 minutes of research would have shown this premise to be totally laughable.

Writes of this tripe should be ashamed of themselves.

Barbarian (2022)

Pig swill

[1/10 · 30 January 2023]

Waste of time, utter pig swill.

Thought the first 20 minutes or so was setting up to be a decent little film, then it just descended into complete non sensical garbage.

Cannot believe Skaarsgard attached his name to this pile of utter poo.

There are so many plot holes it's ridiculous, so many unanswered questions, so many inconsistencies.

Seriously, cannot believe the good reviews for this film, don't waste your time with this junk.

The lead actress was very good, I hope she is able to attach her talent to a better project than this is the future.

Glad I paid nothing for this movie online.

Poltergeist Activity (2015)

Dear Lord

[1/10 · 25 November 2022]

This film popped up on Netflix and I thought I'd give it a go.

I should have known better than to waste my time when it appeared that the "school" kids in it (teenage daughter and her boyfriend) are clearly in their early thirties and don't look much younger than the "father".

When the Dad was attacked by a porcelain doll it was bad.

When the creepy neighbour said the immortal words "legend has it that......." it was worse.

BAD acting, BAD special effects that look like someone wrestling with a toy, BAD script.

BAD film.

Avoid this movie unless you want a laugh and fancy wasting a couple of hours of your life.

Guillermo del Toro's Cabinet of Curiosities (2022)

A total snoozefest

[1/10 · 9 November 2022]

The best thing about this is the opening titles, which make it look like a classy interesting series.

It's not.

The stories are boring and sometimes utterly laughable. The 7th story is just so boring I almost switched it off. It made no sense whatsoever.

This tries to be "The Twilight Zone" and fails miserably. The stories are forgettable, and the acting in some of the episodes is absolutely dire (I'm looking at YOU Crispin Glover in "Pickman's Model".

SO disappointed in this. The Twilight Zone episodes from the 50s and then from the 80s wipe the floor with this piece of trash.

Don't believe the hype. This is a badly acted, poorly written, forgettable snoozefest.

Sea of Lies (2018)

Dear Lord, absolutely awful. Avoid if you value your sanity....

[1/10 · 6 December 2021]

Terrible script. Worse acting. Basically soft porn but even that can't save this God awful movie. Don't waste your time, I've seen better acting in a school play.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)

Wanted to shoot myself in the head just to escape

[1/10 · 30 November 2021]

Without any spoilers, I wanted to share the same fate as the family at the end of this film just to escape the interminable bore that is this movie. Save yourself some time and skip this dirge. Was wishing for a fast death for all of the cast by the end.

The Surface (I) (2014)

Total snooze fest with terrible acting

[1/10 · 20 September 2021]

Kept waiting on this film to pick up, it never did. The acting is absolutely atrocious, especially the older guy. Every time he started choking I would hope he died. Appalling film with terrible dialogue. Don't waste your time with this one, it starts mildly interesting and then takes a nose dive into complete drivel.

Bad Samaritan (2018)

Terrible storyline, bad acting, boring....

[2/10 · 14 January 2021]

Can't understand the good reviews for this film, It's on Netflix right now, and it is really bad. David Tennant should stick to other things, he was badly cast here and his American accent was abysmal. The young guy who played the main character out-acted him by a mile. He was very good and I'll look out for him in other things. He was the only good thing about this movie. The storyline was weak and contrived. I actually kept waiting for it to turn into a comedy, it was just so hard to take it seriously. Really bad, only worth watching for the main young actor Robert Sheehan, who acted his socks off in a bad movie.

Pet Sematary (2019)

Really disappointing, no better than original and quite pointless....

[5/10 · 21 August 2019]

I had such high hopes for this film when I head that John Lithgow had been cast as Jud Crandall. I was also hoping that they would 'correct' some of the original film, add in the parts that were left out, for example, Jud's wife Normal Crandall, and more of Louis's relationship with his in-laws. However, they actually changed the story completely by making Ellie, the daughter, the one who is killed in the road. They invent a completely different storyline by having Ellie bury her mother (not Louis), and also insinuate that Jud had buried his wife Norma there! It really becomes a different story, and a little ridiculous. There is no backstory of Timmy Baterman (except in the 'extras' section of the dvd), the Zelda backstory is completely wrong, and they even changed the name of Jud's dog Spot. I was SO disappointed in this remake, it could have been so much better. It's not clever or original to change the story, it just leaves true fans of the novel shouting at the screen like I was. They could have improved on the original movie, but even that was truer to the book than this. John Lithgow could have been great with a better script. A wasted opportunity.

Thinner (1996)

Cut yourself a slice of Gypsy pie.....

[29 March 2002]

When i saw the cover of the video jacket, i knew i was in for a cheesy but probably enjoyable flick. It is a watchable film, and follows the plot of the novel pretty well all told. The actors were adequate, but not noteworthy. Some people have commented on the fact that William Halleck does not seem like a likeable character, and this is true of the film, but the novel delves more into his relationship with his daughter, and gives us a far more rounded character who isn't just motivated by hatred and revenge; we see that this is a man who loves his daughter deeply, and is terrified by what is happening to him. All in all, forgetable but worth watching just to see King in a cameo as the pharmacist.

Jurassic Park (1993)

The rape of the natural world?

[26 March 2002]

This movie, was, in 1993, a visually spectacular phenomenon that has set the standard for special effects in many subsequent films.

The musical score by the brilliant John Williams is phenomenal - the entire score is well worth purchasing in it's own right, and it compliments the movie beautifully. However, it is Goldblum's character who has some important and profound insights into the whole concept of a man-made amusement park which disregards the natural world. In the wake of the discovery of genetic cloning, these insights are even more profound. He refers to it as 'the rape of the natural world'. "You stood on the shoulders of geniuses, and before you even knew what you had, you packaged it and patented it, and now you're selling it". When life imitates fiction - oh the irony! And, as he says, "you were so preoccupied with whether or not you could, that you didn't stop to think if you should". A great film.

The Time Machine (2002)

All the time in the world....

[16 March 2002]

Whew, it took a while, but i've read all of the other comments here and i have to say i agree with the vast majority of them which are pretty disappointed with this movie for the most part. Obviously, this was never going to be a re-hash of the original movie, and some of the updates actually work reasonably well for a modern audience (i'm thinking of the hologram assistant in place of the speaking 'rings' in the original movie), but even this didn't have the cinematic impact of the original. I felt the movie could never decide what it wanted to be - was it Victorian, American, or what? Some people had bizarre American/English accents, others plumy English accents, and Mrs Whatchits awful Scots accent. And all the while people strolling about in Victorian costume! This created a mixed up feel to the movie that just confused things unnecessarily.

The casting was odd - Guy Pearce was passable but unremarkable as the time traveller, and Philby's character never really had much to say at all. Samantha Mumba couldn't shed her Irish accent which just made for a strange vision of the future. The plot had some inconsistencies which bothered me. How did the Eloi manage to learn the complete English language after 800,000 years from some stone fragments which were left after the destruction of civilization? Why has the human race not evolved physically (apart from the Morlocks) after all this time? Where was the hologram guide obtaining his power? And how did his glass screen remain intact when entire cities and towns have disappeared? Why did Irons's character look different from the rest of the Morlocks? (I think this might have been partially explained, but not very well). Why did Irons's character appear to age rapidly and decompose when he fell out of the time machine if Alex was going BACK in time? Wouldn't he have gotten younger and younger and then just 'cease' to exist? How did Alex manage to destroy the Morlocks at the end of the film and not the Eloi? Surely if they were all sharing the same time, which they were, then they would all be killed? Anyway, maybe someone can let me know if they can answer these questions. Apart from the plot problems, i do agree with some of the other reviews that suggest the movie ended too abruptly; there was not the conclusion that the original offered us. However, i did like the look of the Morlocks, and the Eloi village was artfully crafted. In summary, a good entertaining and thought-provoking romp for an evening, but an ultimately forgettable flick without endurance the of the original.

Trainspotting (1996)

Trainspotting

[6 March 2002]

I've read most of the other comments and am not really surprised to see that most of them are complaining about the Scottish accents being 'too thick'. Hmmmmm. Well, it is set in Edinburgh. Maybe i'm biased (most likely) because i'm not only Scottish but from Edinburgh, but i think that a lot of Americans who watch this can be a bit lazy trying to understand accents that don't sound exactly like their own. They immediately say "i can't understand that". I've lived in the States for 8 months now and it does get frustrating when i know i'm speaking perfectly clear English and i get met with furrowed brows and odd looks as if i'm speaking in a foreign language. If you listen to the dialect in this film, it is understandable. I think someone actually likened it to Swahili, hehe. Anyway, a great film all in all.

Jesus of Nazareth (1977)

Jesus of Nazareth

[5 March 2002]

I have read all of the other comments here to see what kind of things people were picking up on about this film, and i am surprised to find that most people are hung up on the eye / hair color of Jesus. Why should this matter ultimately, if the message of the film is true and good? Incidentally, it is possible for hair color to darken significantly from youth to adulthood. Anyway, surely Jesus can be all things to all people and creeds; does it really matter what his physical characteristics were if the message of Christianity is passed on? It is the tale, not he who tells it.

Braveheart (1995)

A good movie, not a history lesson

[28 February 2002]

I have a couple of things i would like to say. Firstly, i have read quite a few of the other reviews here to get a feel of what people thought about this movie, and i am appalled to say that quite a lot of people seem to think that Britain and Scotland are two different countries. Scotland is in Britain, people, its that sticky-out part at the top. Scots ARE British, although a lot of us don't like that fact and would rather be considered Scots before we were considered British. (I'm not talking about everybody here though). Secondly, many of the reviews list all of the historical inaccuracies in this film. It is clear that there are many of these as we can see from the other reviews (i think someone even said that Edinburgh was an English town that the Scots took over? This is nonsense as far as i know - Edinburgh has always been in Scotland! I live there!) Yes, Murron was not the name of Wallace's wife (it was Marion), and yes, the French princess and Wallace never did have an affair and probably never actually met at all, and yes, Wallace did commit his fair share of atrocities against English people too, and yes, he was not a commoner etc etc etc i could go on, but this is not meant to be a lesson in Scots history, and neither is the movie. It never claims to be anything other than it is; a piece of entertainment. It's an enjoyable movie for the most part, although some of the dodgy Scots accents are questionable and sound more like Northern Irish to me, but on the whole, it's an emotional and well directed film. The musical score is excellent too. One small grievance though - after the film was released, they put up a hideous statue in Stirling, supposed to be William Wallace, but it looked exactly like Mel Gibson! Well, it gave us something to laugh at anyway! Well, i'll read some of the other reviews and see if i can find any others written by Scots to see what they think. Bye for now.

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

Excellent movie, but very FAMILIAR....?

[20 February 2002]

Having read the King novella, i was very anxious to see this movie, and when i did, i was pleasantly surprised. It was pretty faithful to the novel, and the casting, score and direction were superb. Then i saw 'Escape from Alcatraz'. Now, i am one of Mr. King's biggest fans; i have all of his novels and would be the first to defend him as a brilliant author. But....well, i can't really go much farther without thinking of the word 'plagiarism'. Now, i know that may be a trifle strong, but when i actually started to think about all the similarities between these two movies, i'm sure you will agree it is suspicious to say the least. 1. In Shawshank, Andy hides his rock-hammer inside the Bible. In Alcatraz, Morris hides his nail file inside the Bible. 2. In Shawshank, Brooks rescues and feeds a blackbird which he feeds at the table. In Alcatraz, Litmus rescues and feeds a mouse which he feeds at the table. 3. In Shawshank, Andy escapes by tunneling through his wall with said tool. In Alcatraz, Morris escapes by the same method. 4. In Shawshank, Andy releases the dirt from his cell excavation by dropping it down his trouser legs. In Alcatraz, Morris does the same thing. 5. In Shawshank, the prison warden is a corrupt individual who takes a disliking to the central character. In Alcatraz, the warden also takes a disliking to Morris in much the same way. 6. Both in Shawshank and in Alcatraz, Morris and Andy both take jobs in the prison library, distributing books to the inmates. 7. The character of Red in Shawshank is almost an exact copy of the character of English in Alcatraz. 8. The character of Brooks in Shawshank is very much the same role fulfilled by Litmus in Alcatraz, and both die in the movie. 9. In both movies, the cenral character has to defend himself against the gay inmates, and has several altercations with them (Wolf in Alcatraz, and the 'Sisters' in Shawshank). The prison shower scene is an almost exact copy of the scene in Alcatraz. 10. Instead of painting (used as a metaphor for freedom and hope in Alcatraz), Shawshank uses music to symbolize Andy's undying hope. In fact, the speech given by Andy about "they can't take the music away from me" almost echoes that of Doc in Alcatraz, who says something very similar about his paintings.

I now find it hard not to think of Shawshank as a re-make of "Escape from Alcatraz". However, both movies are well worth watching in their own right, but i have never felt the same about Shawshank after seeing Alcatraz, and knowing that it was made almost 20 years before Shawshank was even written. Anyway, a very good movie none the less.

Misery (1990)

Another case of "not as good as the novel"

[19 February 2002]

I had already read the novel by the time this movie became popular, and so i admit to watching it with the expectation that it was not going to live up to the brilliant characterizations in the book. I was right. James Caan is wooden and completely unbelievable as Sheldon; i never believed he was in that much pain in any of his scenes. Yeah, Bates is good as Annie Wilkes, but i couldn't help feeling that she was too young for the part, and did not go far enough in portraying just how psychotic this character really was in the novel. Watchable, but you'll probably be disappointed if you've read the novel.

It (1990)

Surely a comedy, not a horror movie?

[12 February 2002]

It's really nothing new when a movie which was originally a novel fails to shine, is it? But to take such a powerful, emotional and fantastic novel and turn it into what basically amounts to a cheap and very forgetable flick, is really a pity. The depth of the themes in this novel could never have translated well to the screen in my opinion. What you see is a killer clown who turns into a fuzzy spider and tries to eat some people. What the novel gave us was so much more than that - 'IT' - not a clown, or a spider, or any of the monsters; just fear itself made flesh. The relationships between the children in the novel were superbly written, and again, this just did not translate well to the screen - bad screenplay, bad writing, bad casting. The acting was poor.The special effects were mediocre at best, laughable at worst. What the biggest tragedy is though, is that some people who may not yet have read the novel might skip it after seeing the movie - DONT! The novel is nothing like this movie. In summary, a big disappointment for both fans of the original novel, and for horror movie fans. This movie belongs in the sewer with Pennywise.

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994)

Watchable, but nothin' to write home about

[9 February 2002]

OKAY - having read the rest of the reviews here, ones which say what a remarkable resemblance to the original novel this film bears, can i just say EH? Have you actually READ the book? By Mary Shelley? There are so many plot changes in the movie that they could easily be considered two completely different tales, loosely based on one theme. The greatest of these changes, it has to be said, is the reincarnation of Elizabeth, which never happens in the novel at all. (And how come it takes months for Frankenstein to create the first 'monster' when he manages to do it in a single night with the Elizabeth/Justine monster?) Anyway, apart from glaring plot differences, some of the casting leaves a lot to be desired too - DeNiro is terrible and wooden as the monster, his accent makes it hard to take the words seriously. And did anyone else notice that the words coming out of William's mouth don't actually fit with what the actor is saying? In one point, where he takes Victor's locket to show his friend, he isn't even speaking, and yet somehow words are coming out.

Apart from this, the musical score is FANTASTIC, and the rest of the movie is watchable. Don't try to compare it to the novel, you'll just be disappointed, but it's an okay movie.

Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes (1984)

Quite surprisingly enjoyable

[9 February 2002]

Once you get past the first notion of the unlikeliness of the actual events in the story, you'll enjoy this film a lot more. I have seen this movie several times, and still enjoy it. Although i find Christopher Lambert a mediocre actor in most of his films, i feel that he shines here (a good idea to let him speak in his native French accent, cleverly written into the script by means of the Belgian explorer who finds him)instead of making him put on a bizarre accent, and it works well. Ian Holm and Ralph Richardson are fantastic and moving, but McDowell spoils it again and most of her scenes are irritating to watch. Some of this movie was actually quite upsetting (the taxidermy labs and the scene where the ape/father is shot) but very well done. The scenery is fantastic, and the musical score is brilliant and stirring. Great make-up effects for its day. This movie is well worth watching, give it a try, you might be pleasantly surprised!

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

Scary in all the wrong ways

[8 February 2002]

This movie had such potential, but failed to deliver in practically every way imaginable. For those who say it is faithful to the novel, all i can say is, what novel do you mean? Certainly not Bram Stoker's classic, that's for sure. Just because it might contain some of the same lines, which the writers obviously threw in just to give it a semblance of Bram Stoker's novel, does NOT make this "Bram Stoker's Dracula". Okay, the sets were okay; the costumes were okay; the music was okay; even some of the acting was okay - but 'okay' doesn't really cut it does it?

To re-hash a point which most of the reviews seem to agree with - Reeves is laughably mis-cast as Harker, yes for his pathetic attempt at an English accent which he seems to forget altogether at some points, but also because he is just too young to play the part of Harker with conviction. His acting just makes a bad movie even worse. Ryder's accent was almost as bad, just very poor indeed. How could they not cringe when they saw (and heard) themselves in this movie? Oldman was okay as Dracula, and Hopkins was nothing to write home about either. There were points where you just wished that Dracula would suck the life out of both of them and give us all a good laugh! Yeah, pretty scary alright? Scary accents, scary acting.

This could have been a decent attempt at a good novel , but with a totally different cast who had actually taken drama classes. Summary? 5 out of 10. Rent it for a laugh. Mwuh huh huh huh huh!!!!