Tin Tin-3 Reviews

Churchill (2017)

A real disappointment - Cox miscast and little happens, also historically inaccurate

[3/10 · 17 June 2017]

I had great expectations of this film when I saw the cast and trailer, but the film itself did not deliver.

The chief problem is that nothing really happens. The entire film revolves around Churchill's reticence to back the drawn-up plans for Operation Overlord (D-Day) and, er, that's it. This is also historically inaccurate (to a massive degree), which doesn't help.

There are issues, too, with Cox's portrayal of Churchill. Firstly, he neither looks nor sounds anything like his real-life subject. The voice, for one, is way, way off. At times I detected little snippets of Cox's native Dundonian accent. Churchill may indeed have been Dundee's MP for some time (1908-22) but he didn't pick up the accent while there...

Cox is indubitably a great actor. He is hopelessly miscast here, completely unconvincing.

Miranda Richardson, another vastly talented actor, is given very little to do, but as I mention above, there's not much for her to work with in terms of the anaemic screenplay.

At times, Cox's portrayal of Churchill paints his subject as a rather forlorn and pathetic figure. That's definitely a first, again completely inaccurate (yes, he was alcoholic, but this is no secret) but forlorn and pathetic he was not.

At my showing, people were sighing and shifting in their seats. The film wasn't holding the viewers interest at all. It was just... dull.

Why Him? (2016)

Why me?

[1/10 · 28 December 2016]

Just back from a near-deserted screen whose tiny number of patrons held an uncomfortable silence throughout.

This is the sort of film that could get cinema banned, it was just appalling. Unfunny script, 'gross-out' gags that the writers of American Pie would have turned their noses up at, phoned-in performances (Cranston apart), wafer-thin plot.

All forgivable, I guess, if it were funny, at least in part, but it certainly didn't work for me.

Please spend your hard-earned on seeing something other than this cinematic excrement - you'll know what I mean when this appears on Pirate Bay in two months tops.

A truly awful film. I didn't have to pay to get in, but still wanted my money back.

The White King (2016)

An absolutely terrible film on numerous levels

[1/10 · 18 June 2016]

I saw this film at a press screening at the Edinburgh International Film Festival. The only positive was that I didn't have pay to get in.

This film was so bad, on so many levels, it was insulting. I'll confess not to having read the source material so it's impossible for me to know how well or otherwise the screenplay had been derived from the (apparently well-received) novel of the same name, but what can be said with certainty is that while the author has read 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' (as everyone should, of course), he's also plagiarised it. More of that later.

The cartoon opening sequence which 'explained' the pass we find ourselves at at the start of the film itself screams 'NO BUDGET!' and while that's not a crime, it was so lazily done that immediately I thought of a simpler, equally inexpensive method of explaining the back story: a voice-over with titles, as was neatly demonstrated in 'Escape From New York'.

Variants of 'lazy' kept coming back to me throughout. Case in point, the technical aspects of the film. While the cinematography was adequate, the audio jumped between ear-splitting and barely audible; the lighting was also erratic. The direction was incoherent at best and took us down numerous paths of irrelevance, while ignoring opportunities to take the viewer where they actually needed to go. There was no structure that I could discern.

The worst offender was the screenplay. Completely lacking in any kind of narrative flow, it struck me as a very lazy piece of work – or incompetent, or a bit of both; take your pick. The ridiculous ending had the imprisoned father being driven from the scene of his father's funeral in an armoured car, with his son and wife running and cycling after it respectively. To what end? What were they going to do had they caught up with the armoured vehicle? The sight of the wife of the imprisoned pedalling furiously on the bike had a certain comedic value, I grant you, but I'm not sure this was the intention of the co-directors. All that was missing from this scene was the music 'Yakety Sax' (a.k.a. the music from The Benny Hill Show).

Some of the performances were suspect. Agyness Deyn as the wife was actually quite good, but horribly miscast as the mother of the protagonist, the son – I initially assumed she was the son's big sister. The son, played by Lorenzo Allchurch, did not convince. His grandfather was played by Jonathan Pryce and his part as a 'loyal party man' was phoned in – and who can blame him when presented with dialogue of such poverty? When you compare his performance here with his epic turn in 'Brazil' it's impossible to believe this is the same actor.

As to the plagiarism allegation, in one scene we see the son being urged by his grandfather to shoot a cat with a handgun. He's reluctant to do so despite his grandfather's cajoling, but eventually pulls the trigger and succeeds in killing the cat. The point of this scene, as I interpreted it, was to show that under a totalitarian state, results can be achieved if sufficient pressure is applied. This is an unashamed lift from the 'morning exercise' passage in 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' where, when directly addressed by the exercise instructor though his telescreen, Winston Smith is able to touch his toes 'for the first time in years'. How we're not expected to notice this obvious parallel is a mystery.

Overall, the film was boring, nonsensical, technically inept and also hamstrung by that appalling screenplay, which came across as if the writer had better things to do. Well, if you're bringing your début feature to an internationally-renowned film festival for public scrutiny then, no, you don't have better things to do.

The film's Facebook page trumpets that Ian Rankin tweeted that this film was a 'harrowing and timely story about ideology, indoctrination and the fragility of freedom'. Obviously I disagree with every word, but it's telling that Mr Rankin didn't say if he thought it was any good. Damning with faint praise, I suspect.

This film deserves to sink without trace for its laziness, technical ineptitude and audience-insulting 'Oh, I reckon that'll do' leitmotif.

EDIT: I was astonished to subsequently learn that TWK had a budget of $2m. In these straitened times, profligacy of this level should be a criminal offence.

Le Week-End (2013)

Pretentious, boring, offensive tosh

[1/10 · 12 October 2013]

Hard to know where to begin with this one. I think the 'good things' about this film begin and end with its Paris location - though even then, the cinematography leaves a lot to be desired. I think it was about five minutes in before I began wondering: 'how do films as poor as this get made?'.

There was no credibility in the mind-numbing script whatsoever - the lines of female protagonist (Meg) are just dripping with meaningless pretension and the credibility of the film overall is stretched to beyond breaking point with the way Meg speaks to her husband (Jim Broadbent doing his best with the appalling working material).

Meg's childish and anti-social behaviour throughout the film give the lie to this being a 30th wedding anniversary trip. If someone I had been married to for three decades spoke to me in the manner Meg does to her browbeaten husband, I'd be looking at an entirely different 30 years.

This film is so bad it's genuinely offensive. The chattering classes will love it, but if asked, will have trouble explaining why.

To be both boring and offensive takes some doing but Kureishi's script has managed it with ease. Avoid at all costs.

A Good Day to Die Hard (2013)

A Good Day... to call it a day

[1/10 · 23 February 2013]

A perfect example of the law of diminishing returns, this, the fifth instalment of the Die Hard franchise is, by some distance, the poorest. I understand there's another (the last? please?) DH in the pipeline and my personal feelings about this are now those of total indifference.

Put it this way, I won't be paying to see it unless I read stellar reviews and someone like (as another poster mentioned) John McTiernan or Renny Harlin at the helm.

It's hard to know where to begin with just how bad this film is. Jai Courtney (as John McLane's son) certainly looks the part, but has all the charisma of a parking meter. This I feel is a major point as the defining characteristic of the franchise has been the chemistry that has (until now) bound the series. Gruber/McLane in DH1, McLane/numerous others in DH2, McLane/Zeus in DH3, McLane/Long's character (can't remember his name, was losing interest by this point) in DH4, etc.

Here we have McLane 'bumping into' his son (in a city of 12 million people?) with the latter responding by pointing a gun in his dad (sorry, John's) face. Edgy? Exciting? Scene setting? No, just dull and ridiculous.

The 98 minute run time appears to be 95+ minutes of bad CGI, car chases, firefights, explosions, etc. This does not an action movie make. This makes 'Commando' look like 'Citizen Kane' by comparison.

At time up I asked for, and got, my money back. It was clear I was not the first person to have asked.

For the love of God, please, no more. Let us remember Die Hard (1&2 especially), before rubbish like this erases those fond teenage memories.

If you're a fan of Die Hard then this film should mean nothing to you. Perhaps they should set the final instalment in Vienna (arf!)

Tyrannosaur (2011)

Very tough viewing, but worth it

[8/10 · 7 October 2011]

This film is an exceptional, very challenging and thought-provoking piece of work. Viewing it, as I did, at a morning showing on opening day, however, is not to be recommended. Having said that, I am not sure when the optimum time for seeing this film would actually be.

There is a lot of very uncomfortable viewing here. The subject matter - such as it is - is very bleak, but, paradoxically, more life-affirming than depressing. That is to say, I looked at the majority of the characters on screen and thought: please don't let me end up like that.

The plot is thin - that is not meant pejoratively, it's not a plot-driven film - but the performances of the cast simply roar off the screen. Peter Mullan and Eddie Marsan are fantastic, but then again, they always are (as an aside, does Marsan not tire of playing scumbags?), but the real revelation in this film is the performance of Olivia Colman.

She is perfect in this, absolutely note-perfect; incredible acting. Awesome in her delivery. So good, in fact, that you forget this is just a movie. Her performance here is definitely going to propel her into the upper echelons of British acting - if she is not already there.

Tyrannosaur is not faultless, there are some scenes that linger too long and others that linger not long enough, but for an early effort from Considine this promises much for the future. This is Considine's 'Taxi Driver' and I will queue around the block for Considine's 'Goodfellas'.

Superb writing and gritty direction; performances better yet and Colman delivers on every level. Bravo Ms Colman, and bravo to everyone else associated with the best British film of the decade.

See it.

Fast Romance (2011)

Pure dead mediocre, so it is

[1/10 · 22 June 2011]

Saw this at a press screening today at EIFF. While I wanted to like it, and expected great (or at least 'good') things, I was disappointed.

The press kit informs that the film cost only £41,000 to make, and boy does it show. Camera work is amateur, the feeble 'jazz-lite' soundtrack jars in and out of the consciousness (the same guy who wrote the s/t to 'Gregory's Girl' was on board, and appears to have re-recorded his work for consumption here) while a couple of the other incidental tracks were bad, bad, bad.

Plot so thin it verges on the anorexic and that takes us to... the performances. Some good. Some very good, in fact. Some not so good and some others, naming no names, bloody awful.

The constant nods to Scottish films of far more illustrious stock (the aforementioned Gregory's Girl, Trainspotting, Local Hero, Restless Natives, etc.) are extraneous and annoying; it's as if this film wants a little bit of the stardust to rub off here. Not going to happen.

Like I say, I wanted to like this. Despite being English I have spent the majority of my life north of the Border and know what Scottish cinema is capable of. It's capable of much better than this.

Four Lions (2010)

Hugely disappointing - a comedy without laughs

[3/10 · 7 May 2010]

Chris Morris set the bar so very high with 'The Day Today' almost twenty years ago, and raised it further with 'Brass Eye' a decade ago.

'Four Lions' doesn't clear that bar. It doesn't even clip or crash into the bar in a valiant attempt to go over, it sails way under the bar and flops onto the mat as a flabby comedy without laughs.

I'll leave the (genuine, not PR-submitted) 100-line reviews to others but can only confirm that the 1.30pm showing I attended in Edinburgh today was greeted with the odd snigger, but overwhelming apathy.

Shades of the decline and fall of 'A Bit of Fry And Laurie' here as this film seemed to stretch for 'post-modern' comedy - i.e. not funny - in an attempt to be clever and influential. Without success.

I prefer my comedies to make me laugh, I'm reactionary like that, and 'Four Lions' hit the mark about three times in 120 minutes. To the person who described this as: 'laugh out loud from start to finish' - hope you enjoyed spending your kickback.

This is Morris's stab at a legacy the like of 'Life of Brian', a film that transcended comedy. A lofty ideal, for sure, but he's light years away with this submission.

Simply not good enough on just about every level.

Avatar (2009)

Derivative, ordinary

[1/10 · 17 December 2009]

Any film would struggle to live up to the gargantuan hype that Avatar had placed upon its narrow shoulders and this movie, unsurprisingly, falls well short. That's not Cameron's fault, of course, as the PRs are only doing their job. Suffice to say that promising the 'redefinition of cinema' in championing something so ordinary is never going to win many admirers.

As to the flabby mess that is the film itself? There's only one person to blame for that, I'm afraid. It's eighteen years now since 'Terminator 2: Judgement Day' and in the intervening time, Cameron has totally flat-lined as a director of vision and compelling narrative. One can overlook the vacuousness of 'Titanic' as it had mass appeal to people who didn't really know any better but it is insisted that Avatar was 10 years in the making. Really?

If that's true, then Cameron needs to manage his time better. What on earth was he doing over the past decade? Certainly not developing the turgid and derivative plot - I could have knocked out something equally as hackneyed over a weekend without too much difficulty. Certainly not fine-tuning the dialogue, which is clunky ('numbnuts' - WTF?) and stereotypical in the extreme - a good deal of it sounded like lines that would have been rejected from the 'Aliens' script.

Cameron was, we're told, waiting for technology to 'catch up' and enable him to make the film he envisaged but there's nothing here that hasn't been done before, and better. It's really hard to see where the money went. If you want to see a film that looks good with minimal plot then I would recommend '2012' over this.

Cameron's arrogance and insufferable smugness are the stuff of legend and his overbearing attitude and belief that only he knows best are undoubtedly responsible for this stab at fantasy. He's clearly seeking a legacy on a par with that which Lucas achieved with Episodes IV - VI but this doesn't even run the loopy and convoluted Episodes I - III close.

You had it, you lost it. Such is life.

Dead Man Running (2009)

Very average Brit gangster flick

[5/10 · 4 November 2009]

I wasn't expecting great things from this movie and I wasn't disappointed. The plot is very two-dimensional but done reasonably well, the film is well-paced and directed competently with a fair bit going on in its 90-ish minute runtime. It's never going to trouble the Academy but it pretty much does what it says on the tin as a run-of-the-mill UK gangster flick.

The performances leave a little bit to be desired, however. Danny Dyer, who now seems hopelessly typecast, really phones in his performance and it would be nice to see him given a role which might stretch him. If he keeps taking roles like this one, though, it ain't going to happen. Here Dyer is reunited with his co-star from 'The Business' (ten times the film that 'Dead Man Running' is, by the way) Tamer Hassan. Hassan, again, means well but again he's given very little to work with. It's a shame as both he and Dyer have, I feel, more to offer than this formulaic 'good-guys-gone-a-little-bad' buddy-buddy nonsense.

The chief baddie is 'played' by Curtis 'fifty pence' Jackson and it's not good, people. I'm not a fan of his music but he undeniably has talent, just not on the boards. His performance is borderline embarrassing but thankfully he doesn't take up much screen time.

Not a great movie, not a disaster either. Just average.

I did chuckle when I saw the name of footballer Rio Ferdinand in the credits as an 'executive producer' and the Jar-Jar Binks lookalike even gets a dedicated (and very clunky) line in the script. Rio's got his insipid 'Number 5' online magazine going on and now fancies himself as a mover and shaker in the film world but someone really ought to take the big man to one side and quietly explain to him that he is not in any way 'cool', nor will he ever be. Stick to football, Rio, you're quite good at that (recent performances aside).

Superbad (2007)

Astonishingly bad

[1/10 · 1 December 2007]

Something that hasn't been picked up as frequently as I suspected it might have been is the 'trivia' section fact that the idea for this, er, 'movie' was dreamt up by two 13-year-olds.

Boy, does it ever show. In 30+ years of movie-going I have never seen such a pile of puerile, unfunny, self-indulgent nonsense.

Quite disgusting, and it's incomprehensible to me that anyone over the age of ten could find this plot less mess amusing or worthwhile.

Thankfully it's no longer the case but to see this odious crap in the IMDb top 250 a few weeks ago was staggering. It's slipped away now that the brain damaged people who rate this film have left their '10' and been readmitted to their secure unit.

At one point, this film rated higher than Scarface. The latter film is the topic of discussion and retrospectives well over two decades after its release and I would bet than in another couple of decades people will still be talking about Tony Montana's exploits. 'Superbad', if there is a God, will be forgotten by Christmas. Amen to that.

Avoid this prurient rubbish at all costs, unless you have a mental age of 10, in which case 'Superbad' is the mothership.

Mission: Impossible III (2006)

Must do better...

[3/10 · 5 May 2006]

Yet another example of the law of diminishing returns with 'franchise' movies. As the numbers at the end increase, so the merit of the film decreases.

'Batman Begins' took us back to the start in an absolutely blistering shake-up of the franchise and, hell, even Episode III managed something similar after the embarrassments of Episodes I and II. Mission: Impossible needs something similar or they would be as well packing up now and quitting while still marginally ahead.

Why? Well, we've seen it all before really. Twice. Big explosions, minimal plots, a shameless and shallow attempt to shoehorn in a 'family' theme (wonder whose idea that was?), MORE moles - why bother going into work in the morning? Your mission is a decoy EVERY TIME, cartoon baddies, guest stars who look as if they have no idea what they are doing there, etc.

It watches like a television drama with a bit of money thrown at it, which I suppose is not entirely surprising but, for the third time the credits rolled on an impossible mission and for the third time I thought: 'That's IT?' It looks tired, the production looks lazy and the paying public deserve better. Not that many of them will notice, however.

Rag Tale (2005)

Unwatchable

[1/10 · 8 October 2005]

As a newspaper journalist myself, seeing this film was almost a duty. By the end of it, I wished that I enjoyed a different vocation.

The script is unremarkable, slightly below average with all of the clichés surrounding journalism pandered to. The plot is almost non-existent, it was difficult to fathom what the film was actually about other than ticking the boxes on how the man in the street views journalists.

What really grated, and which actually gave me a headache, was the way the film was shot. Jaunty angles and quick-cut editing abound. This made the remake of 'Rollerball' look sedate by comparison. One can only assume that the editor or director has recently been dumped by someone with photo-sensitive epilepsy.

Jennifer Jason Lee, Malcolm McDowell, Kerry Fox - what were you thinking of? A terrible, terrible movie. Avoid at all costs.

Silver Dream Racer (1980)

Awful, Awful, Awful

[1/10 · 23 March 1999]

Where to begin? Appalling plot, appalling acting, appalling score. I can scarcely remember a film where I have squirmed so much in embarrassment. This tale of a world-conquering British "superbike" (coming at a time when the British motorcycle industry was all but dead in the water) is corny in the extreme. Truly some of the worst acting ever seen, but despite the huge amount of money spent on the movie, I have never met anyone who has seen it. There is a God.

White Men Can't Jump (1992)

Truly awful

[3 February 1999]

What is this film meant to be? Comedy? Action? Drama?. It does not itself know so we can be none the wiser. Apalling script of an unbelievably corny nature, wooden performances and directorially embarrasing. Give it a miss and save yourself the pain.

Romper Stomper (1992)

Striking

[10/10 · 3 February 1999]

A love story of sorts, set within a deeply racist framework. This film is considered controversial by some. Romper makes neither pro- nor anti-racist statements, it merely reflects a strata of society. I don't think that the director is trying to teach us a lesson, but rather vying for the viewers attention, to observe, in much the same way as Oliver Stone subsequently did with "Natural Born Killers". A great movie, despite what Marxist no-marks would have you believe.

Mediterraneo (1991)

Beautiful

[10/10 · 3 February 1999]

A simple, evocative and beautiful film with an envious "Marino" backdrop. A well told (and partly true) account of a group of Italian seamen marooned on a Greek island. An innocent laugh in the face of war and very moving also. Superb.

Out for Justice (1991)

Class!

[22 January 1999]

The seriously misunderstood Steven Segal stars as a violent cop (again) in this trash classic. Not to be taken seriously and very violent, this is trash cinema at its finest. Invite all your mates round and drink heavily prior to watching this film to fully appreciate the "Steven Segal Experience".

Das Boot (1981)

Quite simply the best "war" movie ever made.

[10/10 · 4 December 1998]

It just does not get any better than this. Awesome direction invoking an atmosphere unlike any other film I have seen of this genre. A masterful piece of work.

The Long Good Friday (1980)

Probably the best British gangster movie ever made.

[10/10 · 25 November 1998]

Bob Hoskins electric and Helen Mirren demure and loyal as the Gangter's moll. "The Long Good Friday" reflects the tone of the 80's just as we were entering them in the same way "Get Carter" did with the 70's. Gripping from start to finish, this is one of the best films ever made.