Very poor film


I can honestly say that it's been a long time since I saw a film this bad and I've seen a lot. I mistakenly checked out the number of IMDB stars this got -which is usually a fairly reliable way of giving you some idea of how good/bad a film is without reading reviews, however it seems that rating system is wide open to abuse as at the time of writing it still has 6.8/10 (seems like it was over 9/10 for awhile), it only deserves a generous 1/10 for Jacobis' well spoken English - and only he knows why he did this - everything else is utter *beep*

I will ensure to read a good few reviews in future. Please don't waste a second of your life watching this film apart from if you want to see how really poor it is.

reply

It originally had a ridiculous 9.5, though since the film was given away the rating has been steadily falling every day. As others have pointed out, that kind of thing only makes people even more disappointed with the film and gets them giving it a lower vote than they otherwise would have done to compensate. I certainly don't think it's one of the worst films ever made - I've seen a lot worse British films over the past few years - but I wasn't expecting much to begin with. Those who felt they were conned by the high early rating here are generally much angrier.


"This time it's no more Mr. Passive Resistance!"

reply

The storyline behind this film wasn't bad but there were too many flaws. Some of the acting was atrocious and some of the casting was bizarre (what a waste of talent like Redgrave and Mel Smith). There were several errors in continuity and the poor location sound betrayed this films low budget.

Strangely enough i thought Vinnie Jones just about got by in the main role and did an OK if not spectacular job, although he is far more effective as a supporting actor really. Also, what's the story with several of the production crew having the surname of Moriarty? I assume PH Moriarty only agreed to do the film if his sons could get involved.

At the end of the day it came over as a TV drama in the manner of Waking the Dead with a touch of Shoestring or Bergerac stirred in.It is certainly not the worst film i've ever seen (step forward PARTING SHOTS) but a UK cinema release would definately have been a mistake. It was also sad to see the late Gareth Hunt as the mortician. His illness is evident on his face and he died earlier this year.

This film tried hard to be interesting but it fell short in some key areas and it affected the finished article. I'd give it 6/10.

reply

As the saying goes: No matter how bad a movie is, you need to finish watching it. Took me 3 days..

reply

I finished watching it yestreday. It took me 3 days as well.

reply



This should have been a TV drama not a film

reply

I don't think TV would accept something this shonky.

My fee iz negoshiable. Ze analyziz iz nodt!

reply

This was quite honestly in the top 3 worst movies I have ever been duped into seeing. I felt that it not only wasted 116 minutes of my life (although it felt like more), but also irretrievably sucked out a part of my soul.

reply

I completely and utterly agree Jmot205...
at least i had someone to kiss whilst watching the movie or i fear i might actually have died...

We died because of your tiny bladder!!!

reply

Lol, was it that bad, it's up on netflix for free

Last movie Seen
Zoom 1/10
Nim's Island 3/10
Forbidden Kingdom 5/10

reply

The main problem with this film is that it was unsure what it wanted to be. It ended up being a cross between ‘The Amazing Mr Blunden’ and ‘Lock Stock etc’.

Either story might have worked but a clone of both ended up being rather silly and a complete waste of time.

reply

"rather silly and a complete waste of time" describes this movie very well, however, as I did not fall asleep during it, I would not describe it as the worst movie ever. Lots of promise in the story, but the acting wasn't good, the sound was terrible, and who the heck walks around with a 'priceless manuscript' tucked in their coat?

reply

[deleted]