dom-taylor

Never has a film bored me so much as this. I can cope with sitting there for 90 minutes, trying to give this film a chance whilst constantly letting my line of sight drift off the TV every three seconds because there's more entertainment looking out of the window, and I can even cope with the bad acting and the bad selection of actors, (well, just Mike Myers - Heather Graham played a good part in Boogie nights) OK, films with bad humour unfortunately do exist, and they can even sometimes be enjoyable; but I do end up not classing them as comedies. An example is the Monthy Python films. However, The Spy Who Shagged was somewhat different, and, to be honest, it was insulting. It seems the' hole of a director was only interested in making money and not a good film along with it. So what really annoyed me...where to begin.

Boring, made the bond film 'The spy who loved me' (which I'm guessing is the film the spy who shagged me is trying to make a fool out of) look like it should have never been made, when the bond films as a whole are very good. Bad acting, and I mean bad. You know what I mean when someone cracks a joke, and no one laughs, the comedy is like that, but it continues on and on and on. Example…. we see Heather Graham in a bikini - the camera slowly moving further up from toe to head, and then the same to Mike Myers - where we see he has a ridiculous amount of body hair, (HILARIOUS ...I think not), and the "YEH baby YEH" and the "Shag pad" lines are even worse - I now feel like hitting Mike Myers. I had the similar scenario with the actor Jim Carrey, but he annoys me a lot less, and has actually demonstrated he can act, as seen in Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind - an excellent film, I must add.

I have to say though, Gold member was a huge improvement, but again, made the bond film 'Gold finger' look bad, plus, as a whole, it was still terrible. Rating, honestly: 3/10

It has to be said, this is something different. Kate Winslet continues her usual acting techniques, which it seems in every film she has made, she has created a different character each time. (For example, from quills to titanic). Winslet's character would certainly not be the same character if director Michel Gondry had chosen a different actress

But, what amazes me most is the role projected by Jim Carrey. Most people will agree he has created a reputation of being a comedian; whether you find him funny or not, this is the genre of the film he usually works in....but here comes this movie, and my response is wow!

It seems Winslet and carrey switch their usual roles, Winslet Portraying an out going, slightly odd but cool character, and Carrey a quiet, sensible person, who from time to time may become emotional.

I was also interested in the choice of the theme of the film, its highly unusual, and has never been done before. It's not another installment of the Harry Potter or LOTR collection, or even based on a novel; its a brand new idea, very entertaining with many twists and turns in the plot which kept me extremely interested.

Excellent job!

7.5/10

First off – I have to confess I am an avowed space junkie and this tends to raise the bar in terms of my expectations of this movie, being familiar with the true life events that form the background of this movie. In summary, the movie surrounds the near-disaster which surrounded NASA's Ill-fated 3rd Mission to the moon. After two landings on the moon the missions had become almost commonplace and public interest in the space program was beginning to wane. This changed at 03:06 UT on 14 April 1970 when a malfunction in a heating coil caused an oxygen tank to explode, severely damaging the service module. The damage was so extensive that it forced the abandonment of the moon-landing and the severely compromised the ability of Astronauts Cpt James Lovell, John L Swigert and Fred Haise jnr to return home, a task they were able to accomplish only by jury-rigging their available equipment under the direction of Houston and suffering cold temperatures before they were able to successfully renter the Earths atmosphere in their spacecraft.

Tom Hanks, Bill Paxton and Kevin Bacon are eerily convincing as the astronauts and excellently manage to convey the tension of being in mortal danger in a malfunctioning tin can a quarter of a million miles from home, facing not only the bitter disappointment at not completing the mission of landing on the moon but the prospect of losing their lives in such an inhospitable and lonely environment. Of course nobody except the original astronauts knows what was going through their minds but Hanks et al allow the audience to appreciate the state of disciplined tension and terror that the voyagers were subjected to.

Other performances worthy of note include a determined and gritty portrayal of Charismatic and forceful Nasa Flight Director Gene Kranz by Ed Harris.

The film is well directed and the pace does not lack, despite the difficulty of portraying events in a tense fashion in a space not much larger than a large caravan, and the long periods of inactivity that form a large part of manned space flight.

Summary : An excellent `true life' movie, successful in portraying events both in space and the reaction of those left on the ground.

Rating : 90%