Film Reviews by SB

This film came across as utterly absurd. I will keep this review as brief as possible. The film revolved around 3 woman, whom I will refer to as A, B and C:

Woman A, has a major health problem with her liver.

Woman B, a younger woman has been kidnapped and incarcerated by woman A, who intends to take the healthy liver from her.

Woman C, heard woman B calling out for help from the cellar in which she was held. Woman C breaks in to help her, and is captured by woman A and also incarcerated. Beyond this point, woman C will not be mentioned further as she is essentially irrelevant to the rest of the film.

Let me now get to the absurdity of this story line. In what way will woman A remove the healthy liver from woman B and replace her own dysfunctional liver? Clearly this is utterly impossible! Alternatively, does she propose to drive the bound and gagged woman B to the nearest hospital and ask them to remove the liver from woman B and use this to replace her own liver? Again, utterly absurd.

How else can this film be described as utterly ridiculous, and a grotesque waste of the talent and resources used to make it.

I felt that this was an important, and hopefully good film to watch. Regrettably it failed to hold my attention and I fell asleep. I tried watching it two further times, and there must be something particularly soporithic about this film, as it had the same effect on each of these attempts to rewatch it. However, I also watched the extra material on the disc, which was a conversation with the director and also with one of the male actors. I found these conversations far more engaging than the film itself, and they gave me a valuable insight into the background to the film, and what the film was trying to achieve and communicate to its audience.

I would give the film itself no more than two stars, but I would award 4 stars to the extra material which made sense of the whole thing. Hence, the overall average rating of 3 stars.

I was not egaged by this film, which is why I have given the film itself a rating of two stars. However, I also watched the additional feature consisting of a discussion of the film by Pamela Anderson. I found this insight into the background and genesis of the film very interesting, and this extra feature I would rate as 4 stars. Hence the overall average is of what was available on the disk is three stars.

The two main male characters, consisted of one who was mentally incapable, and his brother who was a conspiracy theorist and grotesquely misinformed. Neither engaged my interest, and the ending (which I will not reveal) was simply absurd, and this just about summed up the whole film.

For most of the film, Odysseus was deliberately going incognito, and was repeatedly scorned and abused as a nobody or a tramp. This was tiresome and did not make for a compelling film. Once he revealed and proved his identity, the film became more lively and interesting. But, by then, it was a bit too late for me - hence only 3 stars.

From the raucous beginning, in, I assume, an east coast city such as Philadelphia, to its ending with a teenage girl having a shoot-out in a desert somewhere (I know not where), I found this to be a rambling and an incoherent film. Regrettably, I watched it until the end in the mistaken hope that there might be a point to it, and that it might improve. Regrettably, neither happened, and I cannot say that I enjoyed this film, and I certainly could not recommend it.

I found this to be an incoherent film, with very little storyline. It is more a series of opinions. Whilst I would not necessarily disagree with some of those opinions, this is not what I am renting films for. This was promoted as a supposedly "epic science-true-fiction thriller set in a dystopian near-future". I would strongly assert that this is neither a faithful nor useful summary of the content of this film. It is certainly not a 'thriller' in any conventional meaning of that word, nor what the film is about.

I would further add that I was initially surprised by the film's short duration of eighty three minutes, but I can now see why its duration was so short - it basically had little narrative content and nothing to offer nor say.

What a waste of talent and resources. This was superficial nonsense with no credible storyline, just repetitive encounters with instantly aggressive creatures. The only positive thing I can say about this film was that the depiction/animation of the 'dinosaurs' was impressive. Regrettably, that alone was not sufficient to make this a passable, let alone an enjoyable watch.

The storyline was inconsistent with no credible continuity. There may have been acceptable segments to the film (hence 2*), but they were neither consistent nor developed in a meaningful and engaging way.

A ludicrously stupid film, which got worse as it went on.

It contained a brief, and marginally interesting, discussion of the meaning and relevance of religious belief, but beyond that the storyline was absurd. The nadir of this execrable junk was the scene in which emaciated detainees were seen in cages in the basement of the "heretic's" house. Moreover, did he really spend time each day feeding and 'messing' them out? This seemed a very unlikely character trait of the 'heretic'!

In summary, I cannot think of any redeeming feature to this ridiculous film.

I put this film onto my list purely because of the director's name, Mike Leigh, whom I have always held in high regard.

However, I found the constant moans and complaints from the leading character in each and every scene rather tiresome. I stuck with the film for about 30 minutes to see whether there was any character development coming along. Regrettably, it was not discernable at that stage, and I stopped the film.

My rule of thumb is that any film which I need to stop merits just 1 star.