aretel
Joined Mar 2014
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings27
aretel's rating
Reviews23
aretel's rating
Good period film with dissatisfying outcome. Doesn't put the Edwardian English middle class in a complementary light. Disgusting actually, which begs me to ask the question, "was British society in those days completly void of empathy and moral ethics?".
Great cast and cinematography.
Great cast and cinematography.
This film lacks any original plot and or sub plots. The opening scene was the only redeemable part of this film. From there, the story goes nuclear.
In short, it was a RIP off from the film Christine, instead of a car the writer tried to update it by using a cell phone instead. Add a few slasher scenes and that is all you really have; a cheap horror wannabe remake.
I would write further about the lack of character development, the bad acting and writing, but that would take too much effort and would just add to minutes I would never get back.
In short, it was a RIP off from the film Christine, instead of a car the writer tried to update it by using a cell phone instead. Add a few slasher scenes and that is all you really have; a cheap horror wannabe remake.
I would write further about the lack of character development, the bad acting and writing, but that would take too much effort and would just add to minutes I would never get back.
I had high hopes for this film, however, within the first five minutes I knew it was going to be an arduous experience.
There is a term in the film industry call "a slow burn", which describes a film as slow moving, but with a plot that is palatable and engaging. This film did not have the spark big enough to create a "slow burn" that was needed. Simply said, this film was a dud.
This was Alex Pettyfer's first attempt at directing and I know personally, but indirectly, how challenging this can be. Someone should have warned Alex that directing and starring in your first film, unless you are experienced in both capacities, is a recipe for failure and watching this film proves my point.
So why did this film fail? The film's very slow pace and disjointed plot did not provide the viewer with a coherent sense of engagement. The film's slow pace made it difficult to understand the basic premise of the plot, as it was not clear how each scene was significantly related to the next. Sex scenes were "parachuted" into the film without any context or significance, adding to the disjointedness of this film. However, more disturbing to me was that it wasn't clear if all the sex scenes were consensual, which in the "me too movement" doesn't exactly convey the right message. If this film was expected to be cerebral and thought provoking, then it failed miserably.
In fairness to Alex Pettyfer, the film's failings had nothing to do with his acting performance, which was admirable, strong and convincing, and he was rightly cast for the part. In general, the whole cast gave very good performances, which leads me to believe that either the writing or the directing was this film's Achilles heel.
Disclaimer: I only managed to make it through 49 minutes of this film, so my review is based on the first 49 minutes. If you do decide to watch this film and make it past the 49 minute mark, then kudos to you for having more patience and stamina than I did.