Reviews

I thought this was going to be rubbish – I was very wrong.

This is a low-budget Brit lads horror/comedy movie and is succeeds on every level.

Mark Kermode might say that this film is an indictment of Lads Culture and Misogyny on a wider scale – but we all know he's a pretentious bore who simply regurgitates the lowest form of current popular belief (I say might because actually I have no idea and am in fact making this up – but that probably is what he'd say).

Essentially its Lesbian VampireKillers but with Zombies – some scenes were ripped out of Sean of the Dead, but hey so what, this film isn't pretending to be anything other than fun.

Some seriously funny lines well delivered.

It's as if Hammer house horror was produced by the carry-on team and updated for the 21st Century (they say c**t quite a lot!!)

Terry 'Turbo' Stone crops up in this flick, probably due to its low budget, personally I'd prefer not to see him in anything else ever again but hey ho, what you gonna do when you need a thick-set guy for not much cash???

This film is fun - watch it, you'll like it (unless you're a zombie!!)

May contain spoilers.

Empire said this was "a work of rare, raw brutal brilliance" - I beg to differ and who ever reviewed this film on behalf of Empire should be ashamed of themselves.

This film is simply not very good.

Dress it up however you like and smother it with as much pretence as you can manage, it wouldn't change the fact this film is simply not very good.

This was nothing more than yet another excuse for gore-porn – there was no artistic merit in this film, its just about the blood & violence.

Tagging on the transfiguration cult was a cheap attempt at pretending this is something other than gore-porn – but the attempt fails miserably.

Do not be fooled by the hype, this film is not groundbreaking, it did nothing new.

I was not offended by the violence in this film, what offended me was the lack of imagination displayed by its Director/Writer/Producer.

For this to have been truly powerful it should have focused on the Psychological rather than the Physical – but then it wouldn't have appealed to the gore-porn contingent, which is who this film is really for.

'Irreversible' was fierce and had some truly horrific scenes (really truly horrific – I'm talking about the tunnel scene in particular) – but at least that film did something original.

If you want to make Gore-Porn thats fine but don't dress it up as something its not.

I read a 5 page review of the book in the Guardian (online) and as such I was very keen to see Gomorrah – unfortunately the end result was not what I was expecting.

The most interesting part of this film was the text at the end stating some quite staggering facts related to the Camorra – maybe if they'd focused the story around those facts the film would be a lot less dull than it is.

Why did this need to be 2 hours long? They could have wrapped this up in 1 hour without any loss of content or message.

This film would have had a much greater impact (and could have retained its focus) if it were a documentary – though I can understand that would have been far more difficult to produce.

I would have much preferred to see the intricacies of the top end of the organisation rather than seeing low rent Gangsters killing each other over territorial squabbles – there was nothing new or ground breaking in what was shown and in my opinion it was shown in a format that can only be described as amateurish.

The lap dance scene was a cheap shot – a snatched opportunity to show some naked women. Of course low rent gangsters will go to lap dance clubs but was there any artistic worth displaying full nudity – no, not really is the honest answer. The scene could have delivered its message (which I assume was to reinforce the immaturity of the two young protagonists) with a couple of topless dancers. Don't get me wrong, I'm no prude (far from it) I just don't like cheap shots & lazy film making……..

However, the biggest surprise for me was reading some of the reviews on IMDb – some people actually seemed to enjoy this dull piece of uninspired film making, guess there's no accounting for taste!

OK, lets get something straight, I really like Lock Stock & Snatch.

This film however has none of charm of the previous Richie offerings.

In fact this film feels more like a made for TV mini-series rather than a fully fledged movie destined for the silver screen.

Individually there were some great performances – notable was Tony Kebell (who was also superb in Dead Mans Shoes) as Johnny Quid.

There were some scenes that seemed to have been thrown in regardless of the damage they would do to character development – why on earth would Thandie Newton (a switched on & a naughty accountant) invite the men she tipped off to rob her client (twice) to a party she was throwing – there's loving danger and there's being stupid.

The whole film needed to be tightened up, it needed some pace injected and it needed some originality – it doesn't need to be totally new, just new enough Guy!!!

Don't get me wrong, I didn't hate this film, far from it, I just didn't like it that much – Guy needs to either up the ante or change the genre, simply churning out mediocre copies of his previous creations is just going to diminish the following he generated with Lock Stock & Snatch.

Maybe being married to that Harpy has sucked the creativity out of him, or maybe Guy only knows how to make one type of film????

If this film was on TV and nothing else was on I would watch it again – but it will not be earning a place on my shelf.

This DVD may contain a spoiler - in so far as it may spoil your evening!

Roadhouse starring Patrick Swayze & Sam Elliot is awful but it is also brilliant. Hell to Pay is just awful - but that does not mean it is without its own charm.

Basically its Dave Courtney's vision of himself and if it gives the public an insiders view of the real mechanics of gangster life then I think its fair to say that gangsters are gaudy, tasteless morons who despite having bigger muscles and realer guns have never made it out of the playground.

This film is unashamedly low budget, and that is not a criticism, and it is to be expected that locations utilised will be ones that are readily available, such as Dave's House (resplendent with mock ramparts!), but what we see here is not Dave Malone the character we simply see Dave Courtney - when Dave is in his 'thinking room' that really is his thinking room , when we have a close up & dialogue on Dave's book collection that really is Dave Courtney's book collection (full of classics nonetheless!!), Dave's wife is, yes you guessed it and its this lack of distinction between Dave Courtney the person & Dave Malone the character that defines this film as nothing more than a self-promotion exercise on the part of Dave (Courtney/Malone…. I forget!)

I am torn between thinking 'good on ya' for having the drive to make a film but at the same time I am almost embarrassed on behalf of Dave not just for producing something truly awful but for the blatant & shameless self-promotion - and not even self-promotion in a good way.

I'll be honest I have seen worse films (see my review for Soldier of God) but I was never expecting H2P to be a real film and as such I was able to find it amusing.

Unlike 'Soldier of God' which I recommend that no one sees I would not say the same of H2P - yes its bad, in fact its awful and yes it was developed by DC in order to make DC look cool (in his eyes) and by default emanates a level of vulgarity that borders the repulsive yet I still cant quite hate it.

In summary have no expectations when you watch this and it might just amuse you but under no circumstance should this be viewed as a 'propa' gansta flick……cos it ain't.

The book is wonderful, Marquez is a true word-smith.

The film was never going to be as good as the book and I was fully prepared for that - however I was not prepared for it to be as bad as it was.

I understand that through adaptation some elements would be lost however the film is series of brief snapshots of the book whereas the original tale is a brooding, smouldering story that meanders through 50 years of our protagonists lives.

The casting was poor, I am a fan of Javier Bardem however it seems that the Director/Caster wanted him in regardless of suitability. The young Florentino was far too upbeat, a young buck rather than the pallid, shy and dare I say creepy, obsessive creature that Marquez's character is. The switch from young Florentino to Javier Bardem after Feminas trip of 1yr/2yrs was stretching the realms of disbelief - from a young teen to mid 40's!!

John Leguiziamo is no Lorenzo Daza - he was far too dandy whereas the book had Lorenzo as a course, brutal individual of questionable repute.

Virtually no attention was paid to Urbinal's affair - we are merely told that it happened but apart from that we are shielded from the details.

So much that was so relevant was omitted from the film which has led me to wonder if Mike Newell actually read the Book or whether he just worked from the screen play - either that or he totally missed the point.

Whilst its impossible for me to fully imagine what this film would be like for someone whose not read the book I can only assume that the lack of detail and the snapshots of the time line would render it quite confusing.

The film lacked the warmth of the book and I personally would have preferred it to be in Spanish with subtitles.

I had high hopes for this film, I thought it was going to be the film that Kingdom of Heaven wasn't.

Unfortunately I was very wrong.

This without a doubt ranks highly in my all time worst films.

It really is truly awful - please do not believe anything to the contrary.

I don't believe they had a plot, just an idea which they then set about filming (badly).

The story, which focuses on the a relationship between a Christian Knight & a Muslim is full of racial & religious stereotyping - the only way they could make it worse would be if they introduced a stereotypical evil Jewish merchant, oh wait that is exactly what they did!!!!

The only reason I can suggest you watching this is so you can log in to IMDb and click that my comment was indeed very useful, because this film is awful.

Be warned.

Oh Dear, Kevins back!

If this film wasn't so long and wasn't rubbish then it might have been funny.

Unfortunately it is long, its not funny & it is rubbish.

Badly written, badly shot and mostly badly acted.

The filmmaker has used, no stretched, cliché & coincidence to the absolute.

Demi Moore's Multi-million Dollar Heiress Cop Character is laughable and the only thing making me not despise Kevins character is a twinge of 80's nostalgia (come on, he was Robin Hood for Christs sake!!)

The only thing I didn't hate about this film was William Hurts 'Marshall' character.

They wheeled out the '80s has been Big Guns' for this awful spin on the serial killer vibe - it would have been better if Demi Moore had drowned in Kevins Waterworld.

Its hard to imagine that once upon a time Kevin was the apple in Hollywoods eye.

I've ticked the 'may contain spoilers' box to cover myself but to be honest there is very little I could do to spoil this film any further than the makers already have.....

This fill is dull – but it doesn't have the decency to admit it!

Full of cliché, it has the vibe of an A-level film project, or a 2 part drama for ITV2.

With Relgious connections, Knights Templars, implied/eluded homo-eroticism, and the oh so obvious twist its as if somebody got a little over excited when creating/writing this.

I'm a Toni Collete fan – she's a great actress, however she was sorely misused in this dull piece of predictability and her part could have been played by almost anyone.

Please stop suggesting this is destined for cult status - its not.

Really, its not.