Low budget is a flaw? Since... Also, the film is too intelligently written to be disposable even if it is over-directed (that I won't argue). And- badly acted? That must be why Katharine Isabelle moved on to work with Al Pacino 2 years later.
The plot's not as thick and the script is not crypt or as psychologically deep as most Hollywood noirs which makes for a more accesible but less stylistic genre piece. That being said the story is well shot and a generous helping of flashbacks keeps the story clear and interesting. A strong 3 stars
A very disjointed affair. The first half develops a handful of interesting characters and themes (centring on abandonment) which makes for a promising suspense thriller only Hitchcock could execute. However, the second half throws the whole plot away in place of a labourious amount of well-directed but ultimately uninteresting bird attacks...and then, it just ends. 2 stars
I've fallen in love with this film. I'm also very proud that the film was shot on location not one hour from where I live. It's a shame East Midlands Media had to perish at the hands of the Conservative's restrictive "Creative Britain" programme.
Over-directed, badly acted, low-budget and totally disposable. However, Ginger Snap's charm is so strong that all these seemingly negative points actually work in the films favour. It's just a shame the charm of the film runs a little thin in the final third
Did anyone else feel like this was basically the same film as Jason Reitman's debut "Thank You for Smoking"? The protagonist, themes, allegories and messages are all identical. Will Reitman prove to be a director who is always looking to remake and recapture his first film?
Like Ellen Page’s character, Hard Candy has plenty of bravado and determination. The film is ridiculous, righteous, ruthless and kind of revolting. However, all these seemingly adverse qualities culminate into a twisted disconcerting admiration for the film and its intentions.
Ah now that it’s all over we can get onto the business of ranking these films. For me it goes a little like this. 1) P of A – 4 stars (2) DH: Part 1 – 3 stars (3) G of F – 3 stars (4) O of the P – 3 stars (5) PS / SS – 2 stars (6) DH: Part 2 – 2 stars (7) HBP – 2 stars (8) C of S – 2 stars
Clumsily insincere in its attempt to engage with it's audience with a heavy focus of character provoked melodrama. Though it does have a few moments when the overbearing confessional identity milieu does let it's guard down and light-hearted fun and entertainment can ensue. 3 stars
It felt to me like a Charlie Kaufman script - but without the dark humour
Some surprisingly innovative directing, unforgettable one liners and incredibly gratifying set-pieces make this unsophisticated and tactless film an irresistible watch. Say what you like about this film, at it's core it's pure entertainment. 4 stars
You Can't Piss on Hospitality, I Won't Allow It
This film made me feel very sad. As in irrationally, incomprehensively and unshakably sad. Maybe it's the combination of a sombre story, beautiful animation, an abrupt yet inevitable ending, a haunting script from Tati (I've found all of his works to be quite sad at their core) and 80 minutes of near-silence that has evoked such a primitive but undeniable emotional reaction in me.
Awful For me the love interest represents a new parent for Gromit. The show revels in Gromit’s hostility and does everything to help promote the new maternal figure as villainous and threatening. What’s worse is Piella’s murderous rampage is sparked from her weight gain – these aren’t very good messages for children
I had a real craving for cakes and ink after watching this film