The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Is quite misleading. Because it is entirely fight scenes. (The one I have seen on TV, anyway). The film isn't about fighting, it isn't a martial arts film, it has more to do with human emotions. The sequences where Jet Li does go into action are brilliant but it is not a fight movie. The consequences of course will be people seeing the trailer, and either thinking "Look at all that action, that film obviously is rubbish with no plot" or else "OMG cool fighting lets go see that."
Which means asking a random Joe who has seen it will probably lead to them replying, "ah, Unleashed? Good fight scenes but the bits in between were boring." Which is a pity.
What I think anyway.
Which means asking a random Joe who has seen it will probably lead to them replying, "ah, Unleashed? Good fight scenes but the bits in between were boring." Which is a pity.
What I think anyway.
Page:
No idea.
Fair enough. I don't read it. Who's film reviewer for the Times? He tells me things.
Christopher Tookey, a film reviewer for the Daily Mail.
Who's Tookey?
Jackass Jackass Jackass Jackass Jackass Jackass Jackass Jackass Jackass
RoJ wrote:
> No probs, he is rather a priss. Never gives anything more than 3
> stars normally. And as I said to Light, RoJ please, lowercase J's
> irritate me.
Roj Roj Roj Roj Roj Roj Roj Roj Roj Roj Roj Roj Roj Roj
> No probs, he is rather a priss. Never gives anything more than 3
> stars normally. And as I said to Light, RoJ please, lowercase J's
> irritate me.
Roj Roj Roj Roj Roj Roj Roj Roj Roj Roj Roj Roj Roj Roj
No probs, he is rather a priss. Never gives anything more than 3 stars normally. And as I said to Light, RoJ please, lowercase J's irritate me.
I've always found Tookey to be a consistently clueless, moralistic prissy little man who doesn't like anything that isn't French or about white people.
Doesn't surprise me he didn't like it. And it's supposed to be brutally violent in the 1st 3rd, that's Danny's purpose. It makes the transformation all the more poignant and the last act even more intense.
What. A. Tool.
Cheers Roj
Doesn't surprise me he didn't like it. And it's supposed to be brutally violent in the 1st 3rd, that's Danny's purpose. It makes the transformation all the more poignant and the last act even more intense.
What. A. Tool.
Cheers Roj
RoJ wrote
> performances are dire...Hoskins particularly bad.. screen play rubbish."
>
Sounds like my kinda thing.
> performances are dire...Hoskins particularly bad.. screen play rubbish."
>
Sounds like my kinda thing.
Bascially,
"first third of movie is brutally violent..
middle part is pure sentimentality... finally get back to the martials arts..shamelessy vouyeristic about violence..performances are dire...Hoskins particularly bad.. screen play rubbish."
That was the general tone, those are quotes from memory, fairly accurate. Normally I respect Tookey's reviews and sometimes his opinions are rather similar to mine but this time he was way off.
"first third of movie is brutally violent..
middle part is pure sentimentality... finally get back to the martials arts..shamelessy vouyeristic about violence..performances are dire...Hoskins particularly bad.. screen play rubbish."
That was the general tone, those are quotes from memory, fairly accurate. Normally I respect Tookey's reviews and sometimes his opinions are rather similar to mine but this time he was way off.
Page: