The Saint 1997 by AverageMansReviews

The Saint 1997 by AverageMansReviews

Review Time

Warning: there is flashing effects/colourful effects/child abuse/Russia/shooting/transformation/disfigurement/terrorism/bodily functions/disfigurement/animal cruelty/self harm/cutting/medical/reference to Ukraine

Well this is certainly something isn't it...: briefly; John Rossi/Simon Templar/other names [Younger: Adam Smith/Older: Val Kilmer:] he is a highly skilled thief that also goes by the name of The Saint, he undertakes this job by the Russians to get his hands on this formula and give it to them for $3 million. Dr. Emma Russell [Dr. Emma Russell:] she is a scientist that has been working on this formula for cold fusion.

Generally speaking: the storyline/script, character developments/exposition and framework and pacing of this 111 minute film is problematic from the outset, as the storyline/script is absolutely tedious, with lengthy exposition on our lead character which brings very little to the table other than we understand a reference later on in the film [so in essence this is just a long way to go to make something makes sense later on in the film;] then we have to go through this time of going where the hell are we? Because we have a massive time jump and then the framework and pacing; the framework is fine; it has clearly been laid out and structured in a smooth manner, but the pacing is so agonisingly slow and mix that with everything else; which you will read in due course... wow this film is hard work to watch.

Art and action; we get is in this drawing of this other art piece, also have this vehicle slowly getting rigged to explode and this game of Russian Roulettes [if you haven't guessed already I am struggling for positive elements to this content.]

Character developments, performances and comedy; they are either generic as it relates to the character developments coinciding with performances that are/were formulaic... but there is no way in hell Kilmer should have been given the nominee he had been given for this performance as he is by far the best thing about this film and Shue is very much worth her nomination when her character shows the knowledge and skills to drag our lead character down; brings their on-screen chemistry to life as well. Kilmer as these characters and within his performance of those characters tries to be comical and make two of his persona' quirky.

This film receives: 1/10, this film is poor; you know when a film is meant to be taken seriously, but it just comes off incredibly cheap and tacky that saying a film is poor, isn't actually doing the justice it richly deserves; this film is by far appalling on mostly every single level to the point where I am actually going to say you should actually watch it to see how bad it actually is... but I should warn you even I struggled to get through this project and the person watch some of this content with was in the same mindset as myself; yes I have shown that this film does have some positives, but it is a counter balance situation, where the negatives are so overwhelming that I can't go any higher and there is an ongoing seen when the ending credits begin to roll. This title has some awards accredited to its name like 1 Winner BMI Film & TV Awards 1998 BMI Film Music Award Graeme Revell. 2 Nominees which one is positive and the other isn't; Blockbuster Entertainment Awards 1998 Blockbuster Entertainment Award Favorite Actress - Suspense Elisabeth Shue and the other is Razzie Awards 1998 Razzie Award Worst Actor Val Kilmer

 

How to Make a Killing 2026 by AverageMansReviews

How to Make a Killing 2026 by AverageMansReviews

Review Time

Warning: there is flashing effects/colourful effects/stabbing/shooting/religion/impaling/drowning/bodily functions/animal cruelty/drugs/vehicle crash/medical and references to capital punishment

To get ahead in life; you may want to trim your family tree: briefly; Becket Redfellow [Younger: Grady Wilson/Older: Chris Powell:] currently he is a convict sitting on death row taking this religious figure thrown these events which led him to be getting executed shortly.

Generally speaking: the entirety of this project is a complete mess and it just expects us to go with the flow and not to ask questions really, so be it the storyline/script or the framework and pacing of this 105 minutes film; where we have the usage of storyteller from Becket: where it takes such a long time in the first couple sections to get anything done, with zero pacing the it is very easily completely this interesting and man I have seen snails with more live and enthusiasm than this film, then we get to that point where these targets drop in relatively quick succession, by this point I am like... I am so disinterested, and what with the non-sensical and miraculous piece of paper, with unexplained character developments and not forgetting for a woman that has done very little in this film and is not a nice person and ends up pretty well; the character developments are atrocious really; they are either extremely wafer thin with a lack of maturity or/and as I have will be said at atrocious. By and large I think there is only one person that really can hold my head up high and say that they did a good job with what was given to them and that would be Jessica Henwick as Ruth: she begins as another character's girlfriend, but she really does put in a solidly good performance: this is one of those occasions where based on this movie; this is actually really high praise with all things considered.

The action or/and comedy l well the action predominantly for in this title does not interest me in the slightest, but when we are in this mansion location I would consider this one-on-one sequence of events; to be worth highlighting as a positive and were clearly consequently something to put in this content and just to finish off; this apparently is meant to be a dark comedy or something to that effect, but the problem is I didn't actually find any of this film being remotely funny or/and amusing.

This film receives: 1/10, this film is poor; I chose to quickly produce this content based on the fact of time and/or a lack of it; I just didn't want to waste my time on it if we were being honest with one another and I just wanted to get this content done in the first place; I mean it is a complete mess from beginning to end I really wouldn't waste my time on it. [Yes I am fully aware of the hypocritical nature of what I have just said,] considering I have just done that which I have now advised you not to do, but look at it this way I have just taken a bullet that you don't have to take, so you are welcome.

 

This Means War 2012 by AverageMansReviews

This Means War 2012 by AverageMansReviews

Review Time

Warning: there is flashing effects/colourful effects/shooting/terrorism/drugs/burning/strangling/vehicle crash/Russia/animal cruelty/medical references to the rainbow and disabled community.

Two Agents and One Product Tester: briefly; we have these two CIA agents are on this case; Agent Franklin "FDR" Foster [Chris Pine:] he is an American, that is a womaniser and the other is Agent Tuck Hansen [Tom Hardy:] he is an English, that is divorced and has one son and out of the two of them; he is by far the mature one, but when they knowingly start dating the same woman in Lauren Scott [Reese Witherspoon:] she is an executive product tester for Smart Consumer [or Consumers: I apologise for any inconvenience; but I digress,] even though they put some ground rules in place, things quickly escalate.

Generally speaking: the framework and pacing of this 103 minutes film is good; it clearly knows what it is doing and it sticks to the plan

Art, action and comedy; when Agent Hansen and Scott go on a date without giving too much away; they go to the circus when it is quiet in the big top; this sequence of events is elegantly put together and shot from beginning to end and on another date they go paintball shooting with teams of capture the flag with a highly comical misfiring that anyone would dread and much later on we have a really entertaining closing section with this trio of performers I have already mentioned in the opening section.

Character developments and performances; on both counts for a good majority of the time, but did we do go down to the really immature level this section of this film, I mean if my memory is correct much more often than not it is; I can remember going to the cinema to watch this film and if these characters were in their early 20s, I would be more firstly lenient and secondly okay; they are using the outlay of coming-old-age, which there is a little this in this movie; but no way enough to qualify using this character outlay tag. But in reality; they are at minimum in their at best 29 to 34 age range and some of this immaturity, becomes quickly tiresome, when this content is first created it is now 2026 and my opinions haven’t changed over this time and whilst I'm on the subject I now look back on this film and other types of these films; the kind of encouraged men, women and/or others to have a big roster of either dates or/and anything else, so thanks for that... Not! But again they have the trio of performers that I have already alluded to in the opening section to spearhead this title and a good cast assembled behind them, without this trio this film would have been shooting blanks on multiple levels.

This film receives: 5/10, this film is mixed; I mean it is good up to a certain point, then it goes progressively down into immature territorial for section and then good again; but on the whole this mark is a true reflection of this movie in its entirety. This film has some awards accredited to its name such as 1 Winner in the form of; Alliance of Women Film Journalists 2013 EDA Special Mention Award Actress Most in Need of a New Agent Reese Witherspoon Tied with Katherine Heigl for One for the Money (2012). 6 Nominees which include but not limited to Russian National Movie Awards 2013 Georges Award Best Foreign Comedy of the Year.

 

Swearing Allegiance 1997 [alternative nameLove's Deadly Triangle: The Texas Cadet Murder] by AverageMansReviews

Swearing Allegiance 1997 [alternative nameLove's Deadly Triangle: The Texas Cadet Murder]  by AverageMansReviews

Review Time

Warning: there are flashing effects/colourful effects/man on woman violence/religion/shooting/bodily functions/medical/reference to sexual assault and drugs. I also made reference to bodily functions in this content as well

The production of this film is moronic: briefly; this couple; Diane Zamora and David Graham [Holly Marie and David Lipper:] a couple that thinks that they are going to spend the rest of their lives together from high school... what utter garbage; she is heavily religious and he couldn't keep his genitals in his parents; but between them they commit this heinous and pointless act.

Generally speaking: everything about this film is just deeply appalling and I will even go one more step and say it is highly, incredibly highly disrespectful to the actual true story which this film is based on.

I mean what the hell? I do understand the fact that this was a TV movie production so you know you have to kind of adjust your expectations from a production level which is somewhat understandable, but come on people... seriously? The storyline/script starts of somewhere in the middle and then we start at the beginning; we don't even have any form of notifications of time jumps back or forward it doesn't matter, all we have is the scenery or some kind of indication that we have moved in time and we have sometimes Graham's in a monologue and they couldn't even be bothered to put some words on screen to tell us the sentencing length and other details or if they had the consent from the family to dedicate this film to the deceased individual in question; I mean theoretically the pacing of this 90 minute film once it settled down in a place in time is from the perspective of in this location then for a while it is good [yes I am looking for a needle in a haystack really; to say anything positive about this film.]

The character developments and performances from everyone involved was and is a skid mark on my underwear after a night of eating too much chilli or curry, they are just so bad that they are highly comical and as you can pretty much guess this film is anything but a comedy, they actually do a great disservice to as I have already referenced the real-life tragic and idiotic events that took place.

This film receives: 1/10, this film is poor; I am not usually this direct, this is one other occasion where I am just going to say I wouldn't all will not recommend this film

 

The Devil Wears Prada 2006 by AverageMansReviews

The Devil Wears Prada 2006 by AverageMansReviews

Review Time

Warning: there is flashing effects/colourful effects/burning/vehicle hit/medical references to suicide.

Runway: briefly; this fashion magazine is being ran by the chief and editor Miranda Priestly [Meryl Streep:] she is a very high maintenance individual that has made her whole life this magazine and to the world of fashion, so this is why she needs 2 assistants; assistant Number 1: Emily Charlton [Emily Blunt:] she does all the general assistance things, including but not limited to answering the telephone and such things, but also she does the standing by Priestly and very much front of house that kind of thing, but also she gets to teach/treat assistant Number 2 as her assistant when Priestly isn't around. So we come to assistant Number 2 Andrea "Andy"/"Emily" Sachs [Anne Hathaway:] she goes on for this job that she really doesn't want, because she wants to be a writer/columnist or something to that effect, but slowly but surely she gets sucked into this world of fashion.

Generally speaking: the storyline/script, character developments, framework and pacing; the storyline/script is at best wafer thin and everything is based around an origin plot and developments [which I will discuss some of the more later on,] consequently the framework and pacing for this 109 minutes film is fundamentally sound and is of a good place, but then it hits you; we aren't actually going anywhere fast so it comes off like watching paint dry, so we were checking in consistently to see am under the film we had left to watch.

Comedy and action; I just have one question and that would be where is the comedy? No seriously where is it? Because I didn't laugh once and the person I watch some others content with; was also puzzled when I informed this individual this was meant to be a romantic comedy and for the action we have a character getting hit by a vehicle.

Character developments and performances; I don't think in my 15 years of content creating I have ever seen such a slow and on reflection agonising usage of basically the character developments known as coming-of-age, off the top of my head the coming-of-age thing happens with him the final section of this movie; it uses the outlay of something like a sudden realisation, which as the person I watch some of this content with referenced at the end; it is a laborious film and I can't disagree with this assessment, don't get me wrong the biggest asset and positive to this film by miles and miles and miles is predominantly the female performances, just for the record the men put in positive performances also, but as this is a female driven project; the females performances are the only thing to mainly write home about and if they weren't as pronounced as they were, they would have gotten swallowed up by essentially a nothing of a script and yes I am fully aware that this film and indeed its sequel comes from a series of books by the novelist; Lauren Weisberger.

This film receives: 4/10, this film is mixed; I mean by and large it is very generic, yes absolutely there are some quality performances but that is it really and I am now starting to wonder if this is just another case of too long between the first and it's sequel; The Devil Wears Prada 2 2026 release date 01/05/2026. But as the person I watch some others content said also the sequel couldn't be much worse than this film. This film also has some awards accredited to its name such as 21 Winners which include but are not limited to London Critics Circle Film Awards 2007 ALFS Award Actress of the Year Meryl Streep and British Supporting Actress of the Year Emily Blunt and Leggio d'oro 2007 Maria Pia Di Meo For the dubbing of Meryl Streep. 53 Nominees which are also including but not limited to Academy Awards, USA 2007 Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role Meryl Streep and Best Achievement in Costume Design Patricia Field and finally Jupiter Award 2007 Jupiter Award Best International Actress Anne Hathaway

 

The Curse of Frankenstein 1957 by AverageMansReviews

The Curse of Frankenstein 1957 by AverageMansReviews

Review Time

Warning: there is flashing effects/colourful effects/animal cruelty/shooting/disfigurement/transformation/choking/hanging/capital punishment/burning/dismemberment/references to incest and sexism

A young boy loses family and make something of some bodies: briefly; Baron Victor Frankenstein [Younger:Melvyn Hayes/Older: Peter Cushing:] at the time this young boy hires a teacher named  Paul Krempe [Robert Urquhart:] as time went past they began to focus more and more of their time on science; specifically body regeneration, further and further they went down the line: Krempe grew more and more uncomfortable, which he did voice his opinion, but Frankenstein didn't listen and eventually created the Creature [Christopher Lee:] unfortunately whilst trying to stop Frankenstein Krempe gave this creature some form or brain damage, so it doesn't exactly come out how it was meant to.

Generally speaking: the script is good; the framework from the outlay of storyteller [Frankenstein/Cushing] and come full circle, the background music; I mean I get it; it is there to create emotions at that specific time, but it didn't have to be ear piercing from time to time, it was bad and I do understand that the film industry was getting back then, but still it was bad and the pacing of this 83 minutes film is likewise good.

Art, action and comedy; I really do like the set designs, costumes and etc: as there is a lot of high detail on them, such as Frankenstein's laboratory and for this timeframe what you would expect to see in it such as for one example contraption/mechanics to bring his creation to life/the Creature [Lee,] for the action there isn't much for me to put here; there is now and again scuffles between Frankenstein and Krempe and likewise there is one moment of comedy, where in a rough description we have Frankenstein's best man for his wedding is practising the beginning of the best man speech and basically every time he begins again and again and so on he refills his glass as he is standing behind the punchbowl located in front of him on the table, until his significant other essentially pulls him away to go.

Character developments and performances; broadly the character developments and the performances of this cast are all good, but let's be honest it is predominately down to Hayes/Cushing, Urquhart and Lee: that take this character developments and performances, make them stand out, making them three dimensional much as they can as it relates to Lee: without this trio this film would have massively struggled; as this film needs a bit of push and shove with Cushing and Urquhart mostly verbally and for Lee you really does become this character with the movement and body language: so this trio of performances is excellent as they really are the driving force behind the title.

This film receives: 7/10, this film is good, it really does depend if you are into firstly horror but then again old school horror as well, because you will appreciate this film, I would have given this project something a little bit higher, if it wasn't for the very high pitch background music, now I should point out this is based on the film and not the cinema's volume issue, because the person and I watch some of this content with went to go and see this film at the cinema and it was good fun, I could have done without wincing at the high pitch sound, as I have very good hearing in the first place, this was somewhat really uncomfortable. But providing you are a age-appropriate, it is worth a watch. This film also has some awards accredited to its name; 1 Winner Guinness World Record Award 1957 Guinness World Record Tallest actor in a leading role Christopher Lee and 1 Nominee International Film Music Critics Award (IFMCA) 2020 IFMCA Award Best Archival Release of an Existing Score - Re-Release or Re-Recording James Bernard (music by) James Fitzpatrick (album produced by) David Huckvale (liner notes by) Nic Finch (art direction by) Nic Raine (The City of Prague Philharmonic Orchestra/conducted by) Shared with: Horror of Dracula

 

Average Extra of: The Government Rejects Banning Under 16's from Social Media in 2026 by AverageMansReviews

Average Extra of: The Government Rejects Banning Under 16's from Social Media in 2026 by AverageMansReviews

Related content: Average Extra of: The Government to Consider Banning Facebook for Under 16's in 2026 Link https://averagemansreviews2017.blogspot.com/2026/02/average-extra-of-government-to-consider.html

Real Talking Time:

Warning: there will be some censored adult language references in this content

Never mind: shucks the parents or/and family members will have to take some responsibility for their own off-spring, I mean fudge I know that sounds like a foreign concept, but maybe if the older generations actually got off their mobile devices and consequently social media to raise the younger generation we may not have the problems with the younger generation/generations we do today? After this government decide to reject plans to ban under 16's from social media.

I mean without gaslighting, I think this is a small part of a bigger picture problem; from the perspective of the children after I would say the 1990's have had a very sanitised upbringing and consequently they can't handle the slightest bit of manure or something out of the status quo for some examples dealing with microwave or unrealistic expectations of life such as meeting a nice person but isn't there a preferred height like 6 foot plus or having a thick skin to some degree to deal with life as a whole and this last one seems to be a big problem.

Because I spend more and more of my time really analysing what I am saying how it is said, how it would possibly be received and then taking responsibility for it; if for an example I was joking and then realising it is 2026 and regardless if I was joking you can't say that or anything without someone taking it the wrong way, because they just don't have the communication skills or thick skin or quite frankly they have been wrapped up in cotton wool, but don't you see that because we have allowed people to play the victims or made allowances for people to be unnecessarily afraid without dealing with something they didn't like or negative, we have increased such things as mental health or/and police involvement and I am not saying you can't get the police involvement, because hypothetically and quite possibly it is time to do so. But you know what I am trying to indicate; dealing with negativity should be part of everyone's life at some point or another and there is such a thing as just ignoring it; they are just words on screen, but essentially putting too many filters around children especially in their late teens is actually more of in my opinion a hindrance than support, because they should be developing personal skills to deal with this kind of thing or if they have tried to deal with it, talk to someone of an older generation about it; because even before they are 16 anyway, they should have [I know from personal experience this is not always the case,] some kind of dialogue with somebody.

But I want to finish this content like this; having a sanitised version of life should never be a good way to live life, because we need a little bit of soil/dirt to grow into stronger, more rounded and in-depth people/individuals and I should issue a very slight apology for the title of the connecting content, I was under the impression it was Facebook, but it is more brought than that, I was mentally social media; apologies for any meanings.