Change Your Image
paulspencer-90394
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Complaints Welcome (2021)
Time to give up on terrestrial television
What probably seemed like a good idea has sunk into a college committee of young idealists all wanting to make a point. Those funny moments are getting further and further apart. Clearly, some of the people are better at presenting than others. To put it simply, there are now better programmes on Youtube.
The Nevers (2021)
How do they keep getting this so wrong?
Poorly written, poorly acted, and poor directing. Its like watching an old computer game. Just sit back and enjoy the cheap ride, but don't expect quality.
Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019)
Watched it for the second time. it really is bad.
I admit I have seen numerous youtube shows, such as Robot head, and I thought perhaps they had got it wrong. I mean, when I saw it on the big screen it was an absolute mess, like a roller-coaster whilst drunk. But it sort of just held together. Watching it for the second time, with the dialogue, the acting, the themes the film is trying to get across, you realise it really is bad. The worse thing is that there is so much money and talent available, somebody really really messed up. Shame on Disney.
Mank (2020)
It should have been a contender
Those that watched Mank have no doubt seen Citizen Kane. Like many, I had high expectations, but I felt let down within moments of the Mank starting. The simple reason being was that I was hoping it had been shot on film, or at least have that slightly warm soft edge that movies in the forties have. Instead, I couldn't help but notice the digital black and white was a bit too harsh and clean. My next issue was also about the reference to Citizen Kane. If you are going to have it as your backdrop it would have been nice to put in camera tricks such deep focus shots. And if you haven't seen the original, this film may have left you wondering what the story was about. Perhaps I would have started off as Mank was dying; then someone mentioning he wrote Citizen Kane; another person saying he did not, and then the story is abut two men writing a script, and why Mank does not get the credit he deserves. That should have been how to sum up the life of a man in two hours.
Pennyworth (2019)
Starts off well, then sags from the middle onwards.
First two episodes are promising. The production is very good; the lighting and direction are above the average television series. But the plot lets it down. You start losing track of who is on what side and what for. There seems to be an anti English theme of people from the establishment trying to overthrow the establishment in order to become...the establishment. Worth watching if like seeing production values on screen, but don't expect a good origin story.
Capone (2020)
You talking to me? I dont know, I couldnt understand a word you said.
Its not good. The script seems as if it had a lot of potential, but within a minute it felt more like a Sopranos episode than a film. The directing is basic, perhaps they were in a rush to finish. But I would say the biggest disappointment is Hardy. His dialogue should have come with subtitles. If you want to see it done properly, watch Once Upon a time in America instead.
The Twilight Zone (2019)
The worst sin of all. It's boring.
Tried watching a couple of them. They were slow and meandering with no element of suspense or pacing. The direction was lazy. Low key lighting does not make the story more atmospheric. In the end I just deleted the lot. Can't understand how this got past the script stage.
Jojo Rabbit (2019)
A standout film
Looking back at some of the films I've seen in the last few months. there have been good (1917), and the bad (Rise of Skywalker). Good but the script was a bit lame. Bad because for a multi billion dollar production with a vast history behind it, Skywalker had no soul or passion.
Jojo Rabbit had everything. Starting with a script that hit every beat, actors that make you believe in the situation, and a story that never lost touch of tis theme that there is hope no matter what the situation. If you have certain films, such as Groundhog Day, Shawshank Redemption, Green Mile, Lord of the Rings, that you watch ever couple of years and still enjoy them even though you know whats going to happen, see this film and then add it to the list.
1917 (2019)
Great cinematography, let down by dialogue
Undeniably a great visual feast, especially the bombed out church, but someone seems to have forgotten the script. A lot of the speaking is very on the nose. This distracted from the feel of the film.
But credit to Roger Deakins. He makes the film what it is. My recommendation is to look at the making of videos on YouTube, then watch the film. It will give you a greater understanding of the technical process of film production.
Motherless Brooklyn (2019)
Worth seeing just for the score
The film has its flaws, but I haven't been this impressed by the musical score since Lord of the Rings. The music is perfect. I'm not a massive fan of jazz, but this score has the same feel as On the Waterfront. I hope it wins an Oscar.
Last Christmas (2019)
It will still be awful next Christmas
The problem with any film is that you cant get a refund if you didn't like it. I can understand that it stops people trying to get their money back, but surely the film itself has to have certain standards. This would be the story, does it stand up to scrutiny, does it have artistic merit, if it says comedy on the poster, does it make you smile. Next would be the acting. Do they come across as believable. Then you have the production, including direction and editing. Does it show a level of talent you would expect from a film with this much hype.
Unfortunately Last Christmas fails on all counts. The story is bland, with a bit of politics thrown in, as if Ben Elton wasn't doing this thirty years ago. The acting is more wooden than toy soldiers, and it all just feels as if someone worked out that this sort of film would make around 80 million, so lets spend a million buying the theme tune, and then 20 million on the film, possibly 5 million on advertising. You are left with something that doubles the investors money, but left the viewers feeling short changed.
Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood (2019)
Shame about the story
The imagery is great. The acting superb. The story, not so much. The real life elements were not a problem, QT captured the atmosphere of late 60's Hollywood so well you could have watched and listened to it all night. The problem was that these little bits of dialogue kept getting in the way. A lot of scenes could have been cut and not changed the film. It may sound picky, but when most cinemas are sticking 30 minutes of adverts before the film starts, I want a story that moves before I do. Saying that, its Tarantino, and he's still more interesting than most of disneyfied rubbish that's being released.
All Is True (2018)
Boring. Only worth a look if you are interested in directing and lighting.
The story lacks any pace or conflict, which is a bit of an irony considering its about the guy who invented the modern drama. Its a shame the script is so disappointing, as I liked the style of Zac Nicholson, whose lighting reminded me of Kubrick in Barry Lyndon. The directing, by Kenneth Brannagh is also good. It is certainly better when he is directing a scene he is not in; which is perhaps a warning that actors should not play the main part in a film they are directing. If you are thinking of specialising in the film industry, then its worth a watch. If you want to spend a few hours being entertained, watch Shakespeare in Love.
Fighting with My Family (2019)
Look at the production cost
Reminded me of the old Ealing comedies. When you look at how much money was spent, and how much it made, you wonder why we aren't making more of these types of films. Yes, its formulaic, but then it clearly works. What raises it above the dross is the script and the acting, both of which are spot on. The story has a clear beginning, middle and end. The actors do not miss a beat. The test is, would I watch this film again, and the answer is yes.
Tolkien (2019)
Worth watching for the cinematography
I have to agree with the previous critics. Watching it at the cinema you could see the quality in every shot. But when it came to the film, it was rather like two different stories that you were waiting to merge. It was only when he started writing The Hobbit that you felt that shiver of recognition, and then it ended. In all, I wanted it to be set in the time just as it ended. That moment when the English were facing Hitler, and Tolkien was writing his most important work. But the acting and cinematography were very good.
The History Boys (2006)
How a review can change your view
When I first saw this film a few years ago I was probably the same age as the actors who played the schoolboys; as such I missed a lot of the groping and instead enjoyed the wordplay and ideas that sprang from the mind of Alan Bates. At that time I would have given it a 9.
Having seen it recently I went to this site to add my review, and read some of the other comments. I realised that these boys are only meant to be 16/17, and are being sexualised by a man in his forties. The words and ideas are still those of a genius, but if the actors had been the real age of their characters there would have certainly been a few raised eyebrows. Its saving grace is that I never saw the play, and so I don't know if the sexual connotations are exaggerated in the film. It is still good, but, as Bates would say, if you're not careful it can leave a nasty taste in the mouth.
Stan & Ollie (2018)
Reilly should be nominated for an oscar
Quick look at the production, 10 million. It has clearly gone on all the sets, all of which are wonderful. But lets start with the script. The film is well written, not a word out of place, with tone and theme about getting older and friendship hitting every mark.
But it is the acting that raises the film. Both Coogan and Reilly have been underrated for years, Hollywood only likes comedic actors when they are hosting the show. Here they clearly love the subject they are dealing with, and hit every subtle mark with ease. I have to say that Reilly is just the better actor out of the two, if only because he works in a fat suit throughout the film. He is so good, you feel for him, and I hope he wins lots of awards for this.
On a side note, my wife, who has not seen as many of the original Laurel and Hardy films as I have, had tears at the end.
The ABC Murders (2018)
Very poor
This is a review of the first two episodes, as I do not know if I will bother with the last one. First thing, there is no character that I actually find interesting. Most Christie books use Captain Hastings as the everyman viewer, catching up with the plot, bit of exposition, leaving us to watch the antagonist/protagonist. But with this adaptation we do not get a Poirot that we care about, merely a man of mystery; and unless you have never seen or read anything with Hercule Poirot in your life, you come away thinking Who cares?
This series is poorly written, poorly executed, poorly acted and directed as if watching an indie band music video. Either stay true to the script, or, like Sherlock, set it in the modern day.
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (2018)
My left wand
When I write a review, its because I care. When a film is so good I want other people to see it; and when it is bad I want to warn those not to waste their time. Watching the Crimes, I am reminded of one of Rowlings books, why use 1 word when you can write 10; and now we have a film in the same style. To put simply, there are a lot of scenes that feel slightly too long, which adds up to a film that you keep wishing to end.
I Feel Pretty (2018)
I've had funnier bowel movements
Where am I? Where is this going? Does anybody know whats happening? It sets itself up as a comedy, but I don't think I laughed. It has a kind of story, but does anything happen, and does anyone change at the end? The scenes should be there to at least set up a funny moment or a joke, but its rather like watching a series of adverts for things that might be loosely connected, but you're not really sure if you should be buying into all of it. In the end I did get one thing out of it. Amy Schumer is not Robin Williams.
Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)
The Dukes of Bio Hazzard
First off, its better than The Last Jedi, but that wasn't difficult. The cons were the lighting. A lot of it was dark or back lit. This is understandable if you are filming in the cockpit of the Millennium Falcon; but every scene? A director once told me that if the actors are not hitting their part, you could film them in medium shot, over the reactions of others around them. The last option is to darken everything so that you cant see the faces, and this is what it felt like. Even in daylight it was difficult to see characters acting. The story itself wasn't too bad, but clearly there was an issue with pacing. Inciting incidents were quickly introduced, and dragged on. But credit to Ron Howard, who had to work with a half completed film.
The pros, Paul Bettany was very good, and Donald Glover shone. If they make a second Solo, it has to be in partnership with him. They had all the best scenes. In the end I walked out of the cinema thinking that this film suffered from the modern complaint of being too long, and coming out the same time as other movies that are very similar. Would I watch it again? At least on my television I can adjust the lighting.
Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017)
Dane and Cara's bogus journey
First thing to say is that it looked great. The cgi, colour, and lighting was where the production money went. And you can see that it had taken the Guardians of the Galaxy theme of not taking itself too seriously, mixed with a Star Wars big idea of saving the universe, but there are two flaws that showed when the film began to slow down.
The first is the story. It felt like scenes were dragged out, more for visual reasons that to help the plot. So when the story sags, it really sags, and no amount of Tarantino attitude is going to change it.
The second was the acting. Difficult when you are always surrounded by green screen, but from the beginning I kept thinking that Dehaan was doing and early Keanu Reeves impression, the post Bill and Ted I want to be taken seriously phase that lasted throughout the 90's. Cara is not much better. If your face can only show one emotion, and that is 'somebody has blocked the toilet, again',then it is difficult to have any sort of empathy. The situation is summed when Rihanna does a bizarre five minute dance, which is only there because someone said it can go there.
It will be interesting to see if this becomes a cult favourite. What will make it watchable at home is the increase in bigger and better TV's. But after watching it once for the spectacle, it will be unlikely if you go back again for the story.
Dunkirk (2017)
If you think Nolan doesn't show emotion, you've missed the boat.
First off, I wouldn't say I am a massive fan of Nolan. I always find his dialogue a bit clunky. But you can see why the critics love him; he makes cinematic films, in that they need to be seen on the big screen. What he also does, like many of the great directors, is give you something every time you see the film again.
I watched Dunkirk on 70mm at the Odeon Leicester Square, and it was well worth it. The action starts straight away, and does not let up. The three perspectives play out well. The boys on land struggle against a continuing hail of bullets, bombs and torpedoes. The people on the boat see all sides. And the pilots showed just how impossible the odds were. The plane scenes were very good.
My personal faults with the film are - the dialogue again. It sounds a bit like one person telling a story rather than actors playing a part. The story of the boy on the boat and the soldier, I didn't think it worked. The unseen enemy were literally that. It would have given the film a bit more of that ticking time bomb conundrum if we the audience knew just how close the Germans were. Lastly, Michael Caine. when I heard his voice it put me off slightly, as I kept thinking, is that Michael Caine? The big plus, I thought the scene with the small boats was an emotional triumph; not overstated or overblown, just the right amount of tone for what was a minor victory in a much larger defeat. Nolan gets it right with the lighting, locations, cast and scenes. Even the music is good, especially the variation on Nimrod at the end.
Finally, we go back to why film critics love Nolan, he makes movies that deserve to be seen in the cinema. I have recently been to see Scorsese and Kubric retrospectives in London; both give the audience something to think about. Nolan will probably be spoken about in the same tones in the near future. Chances are, he will adapt a novel, and it will be hailed as a master piece. This one was close.
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017)
I would rather be in Hamalot
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy were great movies, worth seeing time and time again. They were well directed, well acted, and at their heart it was a great story. Maybe if you asked a child what they liked they might have said, the large elephants. Well, this is the basis for Legend of the sword.
The opening battle lets you know that this is a big budget with little ideas. Having knowledge of the Arthurian legend, I understood who some of the characters were, and what the story would be about. The problem was, after thirty minutes I did not know what was happening, worse, I did not care.
The young Arthur ends up in London. Surprisingly, no one ever says, 'Hey, remember that fight with those giant elephants?' So now we must just be in old normal times. There is still a bit of magic going on here and there, you got a budget to blow so why not. Then Arthur ends up joining a queue to pull the sword out of the stone, watched by David Beckham. By now I really missed those big elephants.
You then have over an hour of Arthur having to sort out the pretend King Jude Law. Guy Ritchie's style means there is plenty of verbal word play, a bit of fast editing, and pretty much no women involved, apart from some witchy bird who keeps popping up to save the day using snakes and eagles.
Arthur then kills a giant masked warrior (remember Lord of the rings, the bit after the giant elephants, and the end (which is meant to tie in with the next film) is the revealing of the round table.
So what went wrong? It wasn't super bad. Any story can be adapted. But maybe if you had made Arthur struggle to find out who he really is draw the sword in the last act it might have made more sense. If you had done a Star Wars and given the comedic element over to two servants, it might have given more empathy for the hero. And really, if you had said 'Don't spend the cgi budget on giant elephants, instead lets do a battle scene with a thousand real people, it might of given the film a bit more of a human touch. As I say, not a bad film, just not a good version of an old story.
Kong: Skull Island (2017)
If you are a writer, this is an interesting film to watch.
What do I mean by the summary? Essentially the film is not quite the sum of its parts.
Lets start with what every writer knows you need for a good story - beginning, middle and end. The film starts with a quick flashback to ww2, then moves through the decades until we get to the 70's. People want to go to skull island. And a group of people go there. But I was never sure of the exact reason why everyone was going. This was because there were too many characters. The script should have got rid of half of them, or merged them into one person, otherwise they clogged the story.
But maybe someone said that the more people who land on the island, the more ways you have to kill them, so they stayed in the script. And what we get is an hour of people being killed. The only characters that you have any interest in a Samuel Jackson's and John C. Reilly's. They are great in their respective roles. One wants to kill Kong, the other wants to save him. And if you had two hours of that it would have been a great film. But instead there is the ticking clock of trying to get off the island before the rescue team leave, and the threat of being eaten by the baddie creatures.
The end was weak. I found it interesting that they showed what happened to Reilly's character as the epilogue, again probably because he was the star of the show.
The cinematography was good, and the special effects were as well. Tom Hiddlestones acting was weak, but that might be because his character was badly written. Like many of the others, he had no character arc, and merely said a few lines ever couple of minutes.
The music was good, but that maybe an age thing (and could it also be the reason why I liked the two older actors the best?) I went with my son, and he thought it was OK, but would have liked more jokes.
Maybe that it the issue with the film as a whole. No one wants to make a 150 million special effects comedy; you don't want to fall into the Jurassic Park camp of throwing kids onto the island and watch them try to escape. You want the option of making a film good enough to stand on its own, but with enough avenues to create a series.
There were times when I sat watching it, thinking how I would have written it. So is it worth watching? Yes, but only on the big screen, and only once.