kodabar
Joined Oct 2007
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews6
kodabar's rating
Michael Head is making the kind of films he wants to make - London gangster films. And he's not bad at it. The trouble is that he's not good at it either.
There's a lot of attempts at witty banter and it doesn't really come off. And that's a problem, because it's half the film. There are some decent actors here who can deliver such lines, but I think perhaps the direction was lacking because everyone waits for everyone else to finish their line. It's like everything is a rehearsal rather than a take.
Alan Ford is in this and he's got a charisma and intensity that is always very watchable, but he just doesn't have the chance to shine here. You see him deliver a line in his usual excellent manner, but it falls flat as everyone else waits their turn. There are a bunch of familiar British crime film faces, like Vas Blackwood and Rohit Nathaniel - though they tend to be from the lower budget end of things. And then there's a scattering of people from Eastenders and the Inbetweeners. But the slow pace of everything and the slow acting just ruins anything they might have had. And annoyingly, the worst actor is Michael Head himself. He's not convincing as a tough guy and I'm sure he thinks there's charm and humour to his performance, but there just isn't. John Hannah is wasted here too - as is Vicki Michelle.
With better writing, better direction and tighter editing, there's a potentially good film here. But as it stands, it's just not good enough.
Ooh, look a whole bunch of ten star ratings from people who've never reviewed anything else. Par for the course, eh?
There's a lot of attempts at witty banter and it doesn't really come off. And that's a problem, because it's half the film. There are some decent actors here who can deliver such lines, but I think perhaps the direction was lacking because everyone waits for everyone else to finish their line. It's like everything is a rehearsal rather than a take.
Alan Ford is in this and he's got a charisma and intensity that is always very watchable, but he just doesn't have the chance to shine here. You see him deliver a line in his usual excellent manner, but it falls flat as everyone else waits their turn. There are a bunch of familiar British crime film faces, like Vas Blackwood and Rohit Nathaniel - though they tend to be from the lower budget end of things. And then there's a scattering of people from Eastenders and the Inbetweeners. But the slow pace of everything and the slow acting just ruins anything they might have had. And annoyingly, the worst actor is Michael Head himself. He's not convincing as a tough guy and I'm sure he thinks there's charm and humour to his performance, but there just isn't. John Hannah is wasted here too - as is Vicki Michelle.
With better writing, better direction and tighter editing, there's a potentially good film here. But as it stands, it's just not good enough.
Ooh, look a whole bunch of ten star ratings from people who've never reviewed anything else. Par for the course, eh?
This film tries very hard to be stylish and charming, in the manner of the first Smokin' Aces film. And it fails on all fronts.
Lou Diamond Phillips plays it as well as anyone can, though he's almost unrecognisable for the most part. The rest are such over-acted caricatures that they're just two-dimensional and annoying. Screaming and bulging eyes don't turn this into something funny or clever.
The action is actually boring for the most part. The film seems to think it needs an action scene every five minutes to keep you watching - and it's partially correct. The plot is so dull and all over the place that it's hard to follow. Or rather, it's hard to care enough to bother following it.
There's some guy, who has stolen some money or something. And at least two other groups of people want to get it from him, for reasons that just blurred past me. It's extremely hard to care about any of the characters when none of them are real in any way.
CGI largely ruins the stunts. The undoubtedly-skilled stunt performers working on this lose credibility when you realise how much of everything is greenscreen. The main character can't even ride a motorbike along a straight road without having to phone it in.
I made it to the end, though I wanted to give up several times. With bullet wounds proving inconsequential most of the time, the stakes were generally nothing. When people did actually die, it was hard to believe they actually did, when they'd shrugged off worse earlier on. Why did any of this happen? Why would anyone care? Did anyone win in the end? I don't know and I watched it all.
Lou Diamond Phillips plays it as well as anyone can, though he's almost unrecognisable for the most part. The rest are such over-acted caricatures that they're just two-dimensional and annoying. Screaming and bulging eyes don't turn this into something funny or clever.
The action is actually boring for the most part. The film seems to think it needs an action scene every five minutes to keep you watching - and it's partially correct. The plot is so dull and all over the place that it's hard to follow. Or rather, it's hard to care enough to bother following it.
There's some guy, who has stolen some money or something. And at least two other groups of people want to get it from him, for reasons that just blurred past me. It's extremely hard to care about any of the characters when none of them are real in any way.
CGI largely ruins the stunts. The undoubtedly-skilled stunt performers working on this lose credibility when you realise how much of everything is greenscreen. The main character can't even ride a motorbike along a straight road without having to phone it in.
I made it to the end, though I wanted to give up several times. With bullet wounds proving inconsequential most of the time, the stakes were generally nothing. When people did actually die, it was hard to believe they actually did, when they'd shrugged off worse earlier on. Why did any of this happen? Why would anyone care? Did anyone win in the end? I don't know and I watched it all.
It's hard to know what to say about this. The script feels like there was one draft. Some of the actors do any okay job with the weak script they've got, but they can't do much. The three main actresses feel like they've got good performances in them, but not for this film. A couple of the minor actors do a good job in places, but most are poorly cast and struggle in poorly-defined roles.
It all just moves too slowly and there's really very little humour in it. It relies on a certain awkwardness to be funny and that doesn't really work. Ultimately, it's boring.
The production is ultimately a one man show and that shows. It's difficult to be a good director, it's difficult to be a good producer, it's difficult to be a good writer and yet Ian Vernon spreads himself even more thinly and it shows. There's a lot of strange incompetence, like not lighting things properly, using white balance or overexposing some shots, but mostly the camera is pointing in the right direction, even if the shots could be framed better.
It's a weird film as there's an idea here that could be done well, but it just feels like Vernon was a little too sure he could write a script when he really should have got someone else. The three leads could definitely have delivered better performances if the script was there, but it just isn't. The film is also too long and I doubt anything was ever cut out.
And then I look at the other reviews. One of them gives it a 10. But has never reviewed another film - not in itself suspicious (this is the only film I've reviewed), but 10? Really? The other two reviewers give it a 9 and a 10. One of them has only reviewed two films and both are by Ian Vernon and the other has reviewed five with three of them by Vernon. What's the betting they know him?
It all just moves too slowly and there's really very little humour in it. It relies on a certain awkwardness to be funny and that doesn't really work. Ultimately, it's boring.
The production is ultimately a one man show and that shows. It's difficult to be a good director, it's difficult to be a good producer, it's difficult to be a good writer and yet Ian Vernon spreads himself even more thinly and it shows. There's a lot of strange incompetence, like not lighting things properly, using white balance or overexposing some shots, but mostly the camera is pointing in the right direction, even if the shots could be framed better.
It's a weird film as there's an idea here that could be done well, but it just feels like Vernon was a little too sure he could write a script when he really should have got someone else. The three leads could definitely have delivered better performances if the script was there, but it just isn't. The film is also too long and I doubt anything was ever cut out.
And then I look at the other reviews. One of them gives it a 10. But has never reviewed another film - not in itself suspicious (this is the only film I've reviewed), but 10? Really? The other two reviewers give it a 9 and a 10. One of them has only reviewed two films and both are by Ian Vernon and the other has reviewed five with three of them by Vernon. What's the betting they know him?