Reviews

Quite an impressive achievement seeing as it's only 2 hours and 56 minutes long. Every incarnation of Batman you've ever seen is better than this. Even Ben Affleck's Batman is better. Even the old Adam West TV Batman is better. I can say definitively that even the Joel Schumacher Batman films are better and I haven't even seen them. To put it another way; nothing could possibly be worse than this film. You can't see what's happening, you can't hear what anyone's saying, Robert Pattinson is more unsuited to the role of Batman than Tom Cruise was to Jack Reacher. They even manage to make the Batmobile look rubbish.

You have been warned.

What most people fail to realise is that this is a specialist film made for troglodytes and people who like wearing night vision goggles. It is entirely constructed of CGI and scenes copied from other films. Hans Zimmer has cleverly fashioned the music to incorporate samples of Bulgarian Women's choir singing, so popular last century, and bagpipes.

Everyone else will almost certainly find the dark scenes impenetrable and everything else in the film sleep-inducing. David Lynch's 1984 version of Dune had its problems, mostly due to budget restrictions and studio interference, but it's a masterpiece compared to this dreck.

If you like female nudity, lesbian sex scenes and high heels then this film is for you. If you want a clear narrative and satisfying ending then perhaps not. Early on I suspected I was watching a Hitchcock influenced tale and the set up suggested there was a mystery to be solved. I was wrong. Overall I enjoyed this film, thought it was well shot in a Michael Haneke sort of way and the acting was compelling. I just felt the narrative lacked focus (is it a thriller, is it a lesbian love story, is it a critique of corporate life, is it a comment on mental health issues?) and the ending felt somewhat flat.

A good cast and a script that was a sensible interpretation of the original book made for an entertaining couple of hours. Then it went wrong in the last hour.

Unfortunately there seems to be a belief that the last act of every blockbuster film has to have half an hour of murky CGI where people and entities fight each other and you can't tell who is who and who is winning or losing. This has now spread from superhero movies to many other movies including this one. You can safely stop watching this movie after the protagonists enter the haunted house and fast forward to the denouement because you won't have missed anything.

A measure of how poor modern fx have become is to compare this to John Carpenter's The Thing. Anyone who has seen both It Chapter 2 and The Thing will know the scene I'm talking about which was presumably included in It as a homage. Go back to The Thing and you will see that the scene was part of a sequence that lasted a few minutes whereas in It, it becomes lost in a sea of CGI and fx that add nothing to the film and go on for ever. It is notable that the fx in The Thing are far superior to those in It and a comparison of the crew on It and The Thing proves that today it takes many more people to produce worse fx than a film made forty years ago.

I liked It Chapter 2 quite a lot until that final hour and the director even managed to coax James McAvoy to do some acting. 8 out of 10 for the first two thirds fell to 2 out of 10 for the last third.

The opening sequence, where we are taken back to Day 1, is very effective and I was looking forward to what new things we would see when we returned to "present" time. Unfortunately we then settled into a series of long and boring scenes in which we are asked to believe that humanity had failed to work out how to deal with the aliens and our protagonists consistently choose to do stupid and illogical things. Unfortunately it looks as though there will be yet another sequel as the film ends at a random point with many unresolved questions. Questions for which I do not care to know the answer.

I was looking forward to this but came away very disappointed. I'm a fan of David Byrne and Talking Heads. I saw him play during his Rei Momo phase and he was amazing and so was his backing band.

All I could think of when watching this film was how inferior it was to Stop Making Sense, still the best concert movie ever made. Even with all the amazing musicians present for American Utopia they can play a facsimile of Talking Heads music but they never hit the groove of the originals.

As for the choreography it was just poor. The two principal dancers were embarrassing to watch and the rest of the backwards and forwards movements grew tedious after the first couple of numbers. I kept thinking of Christine and the Queens and how superior their dance moves are.

It pains me to say it but American Utopia comes over as a decent but not quite good enough Talking Heads tribute band with rubbish choreography.

The most hilarious collection of fake accents you're ever likely to come across outside of an episode of 'Allo', 'Allo!' It's impossible to think anything other than Gregory Peck and Laurence Olivier were competing to have the most ridiculous accent and the most unbelievable acting styles. If they weren't then they've been seriously over-rated as dramatic actors.

The film itself has a plot as ridiculous as the accents though it is well shot and paced with plenty of action. I admit I enjoyed it but for all the wrong reasons.

I have never read any of the Spenser books written by Ace Atkins but I have read all of the Robert B Parker books and, as a result, found this film very confusing. It seems to be an origin story taking place before Spenser becomes a PI proper. Mark Wahlberg makes for a good Spenser and all the wisecracks are in place. Winston Duke is also good as Hawk but not quite as cool as I expected. Overall I liked a lot of the movie, especially Wahlberg's portrayal but I missed Susan, an important character in the books.

I don't believe films have to slavishly follow the books they are based on but in this case it seems they just used an approximation of Spenser and Hawk then threw in Pearl the dog. This did not need to be a Spenser film and they could have given the characters different names and we would never have known what they were based on. As such it would just be a fun action film.

Despite my carping I did enjoy the film except for the hideous music soundtrack which was cranked up so loud that I had to constantly change volume - up to hear the dialogue then down for the ear-splitting music whenever there was any action. I would have preferred them to use a jazz-inflected score which would have suited the mood better but that might just be my age showing.

My goodness what a lot of negative reviews this show has generated though I can't understand why. Seldom have I seen such a fun programme. Yes, fun. This was funny, sexy, violent, bonkers and emotionally truthful in a way that other series fail to achieve.

To think that this was aiming for any kind of historical accuracy is mad. It was made as an entertainment riffing on possible historical events. The use of modern language, initially jarring, ends up working to its advantage. There's no more reason to dislike modern usage than there is to dislike cod medieval or cod turn of the millennia language. Any language choice is going to be inauthentic so you might as well go for modern vernacular which has the side effect of milking the dialogue for humour. Using Donovan's Hurdy Gurdy Man for the theme tune is as inspired as using Nick Cave for the theme tune of Peaky Blinders.

You might also like to note the satirical reference to other well-known franchises and the use of Shakespearian minor characters. The two centurions sampling the "stash" of the witch doctor was comedy gold.

Yes, how we all hunger for the certainty of the old days when you knew where you were. When Loved It or Hated It reviews could be searched on and all TV programmes followed the same rules and were as bland as each other. Now all we have left is "helpful" so please regard this review as a provocative Loved It review. No, seriously, I really loved this series and can't wait for the next and I hope I've been really unhelpful in my review.

I initially had reservations about Dunkirk. My first reservation was that the beach looked empty with only handfuls of soldiers visible. You never got the impression that there were 400000 soldiers trapped on the beach. Secondly this must be one of the most bloodless war films ever made and, whilst it's easy for directors to slip into war porn these days, men just falling over when shot is utterly unconvincing.

Despite these misgivings I found the film gripping from beginning to end. The aerial scenes in particular were outstanding. The score and sound design were also outstanding ensuring that tension and was maintained and built upon throughout the film. I was also impressed by the mixing of the three timelines and points of view. Going in it seemed impossible for anyone to weave the three together but it works to perfection.

Ultimately my take on the film is that Nolan has created a film that is a series of metaphors about what happened at Dunkirk and not a depiction of the reality of what happened at Dunkirk. The combination of the cinematography, score and fractured timelines give an impression of the horrors of waiting on the beach to be rescued that a more conventional approach could probably never achieve. Another director could have produced an effects heavy movie which lumbered on forever with saccharine character backstories and a linear chronology and it would not be nearly so effective.

I may be wrong but I think Dunkirk is one giant metaphor. And it works

On reviewing Prometheus in 2012 I said it "is a very good film which has been folded inside an exceedingly bad film." I could say exactly the same about Covenant. In fact this Alien prequel suffers from almost exactly the same faults as Prometheus. It's overlong, has too much mystical mumbo-jumbo that adds nothing to the plot and the dialogue is awful.

Without giving anything away you could immediately improve the film by cutting out the prologue, the flute scene and at least half of what happens on the planet. I have nothing against philosophical musings in films but that's not we expect in an Alien movie. We want the visceral and pulse-pounding moments building up to a crescendo without any baggage to slow down the action.

Ridley Scott has said he wants to build a franchise out of Alien to rival Star Wars. I believe he could do it if he'd ditch all the nonsense and find some better scripts. I really enjoyed Alien: Covenant for the most part but I'm really frustrated by the bits that apply the brakes when we want the action to keep building.

A well-acted cyber-thriller. Nice to see some unfamiliar faces and that the makers didn't feel the need to make it a beauty contest.The plot isn't novel but it's well constructed and doesn't hand out the answers on a plate.

I did find the first 2 episodes rather slow but then it picked up the pace and I had to binge watch the rest. At a total of 6 episodes it doesn't overstay its welcome like most American dramas. It won't change your life but is an easy watch if you're in the mood for a thriller.

BTW I don't understand reviewers whinging about bad overdubs. If you can't be bothered reading subtitles then why bother watching anything not made in the English language?

Who wouldn't want to spend two hours looking at Manil Issa? That's also the problem with this film – she's so beautiful that you're never surprised that she survives all the difficulties she encounters as an immigrant in Paris. You can't help thinking that if she were a man, if she didn't have those looks, if she wasn't so accommodating to all the people she meets, the outcomes would have been very different.

Nevertheless this is an enjoyable film. I particularly liked the portrayal of Paris life and all the different type of people and groups who co-exist there. It was also refreshing to see the snippets of the lectures in the university and realise that there is still room for the intellectual life and that the director wasn't afraid to portray this.

A film that I couldn't help liking but it could have done with a greater sense of jeopardy throughout and a more considered ending.

This is as near to being a match to how I imagined the film should be as it's ever going to get. It isn't perfect but then nothing ever is, given that it's someone's interpretation of a work of art from a different medium. In the canon of Marvel films I rank this as number one but it's probably because Doctor Strange was always my favourite Marvel comic back in the sixties and the film captures the psychedelic aspects of the original perfectly even down to using Interstellar Overdrive on the soundtrack.

My first minor dislike is that the Ancient One is played by a white woman. Actually I think that changing the Ancient One's gender is inspired and Tilda Swinton is brilliant in the role. But it's hard to see why an Asian actor wasn't chosen for the role. My other dislike was the opening sequence. It seems all films have to start with some big action sequence these days but when you don't yet know its connection to the main story it has little impact except to impress you with the CGI. I would far rather this opening sequence was left on the cutting room floor and the film started with the next scene with Stephen Strange in the hospital.

Opening sequence apart, I felt that for once the CGI earned its place in Doctor Strange and was perfectly integrated into the story. The visuals often reflected Steve Ditko's style, further adding to my enjoyment of the film. I hope Marvel make some more standalone Doctor Strange movies because I can't help but feel he will be ill-served as a mere team member in one of their ensemble efforts.

I seldom venture out to the theatre to see films anymore, not because I don't enjoy going but because there's seldom anything on I want to see. I'm not interested in films for children, chick flicks or films that have to go BOOM every two minutes. I used to enjoy superhero films but lately they are just an excuse for loud pointless fights and bad CGI.

The only reason I went to the cinema is that my wife had friends visiting and I wanted to keep out of their way (in the nicest possible way.) Don't Breathe was the only film showing at any of the local cinemas that was remotely of interest to me. I had no great expectations but I was pleasantly surprised.

This is not a big budget movie and it depends heavily on the skill of the actors to engage the audience and on the skill of the film crew to make the most of claustrophobic spaces in the house where most of the action takes place. The plot is pretty thin but serves its purpose. The score is never overpowering and the effects do not look like they needed a Cray supercomputer (do they still exist?) to render crude visuals that take you out of the action. Oh yes, and at 88 minutes you can be assured the time is used to good effect and not just to add bloat.

A good efficient thriller with strong horror elements. Tense enough to keep you gripped and short enough not to let you dwell on the plot holes. Give me this any day over the tedious blockbusters that currently monopolise the cinemas.

I was unimpressed by Peter Stickland's previous film Berberian Sound Studio so the only reason I wanted to see this film was because it starred Sidse Babett Knudson. So let me be honest and get this point out of the way – despite the fact this film features no nudity, I found it very erotic. I then asked myself how would a female viewer assess this film and went looking for an answer. Checking the linked critics review on IMDb revealed that there are very few reviews by female critics (that applies to all films not just this one) which certainly gives pause for thought in itself. Of those female critics most gave it an average to excellent rating and did not on the whole consider the film to be exploitative. Jennifer Drewett from I'm With Geek raised the question "how can a lesbian film directed by a man come out without pandering to the male gaze?" before going on to praise the film.

My view is that this film does in part pander to the male gaze and indeed it should given the director set out to make a homage to 1970s Euro-sleaze films albeit filtered through an artistic aesthetic. In fact it's more effective than modern porn because, as in a good horror film, the more explicit material is only implied and occurs off screen. I don't want to labour the point but I do think some other writers have avoided the question of its eroticism or, in some cases, even denied that it is erotic at all.

Putting the question of eroticism to bed (pun intended), how about the other elements of the film? The homage/pastiche elements of the film are done perfectly – anyone who has ever seen a 70s European sexploitation film will immediately recognise the stylised titles, the breathy soundtrack, the use of smoke and mirrors to imply you are seeing more than is actually displayed on screen. But deeper than this is a vision that incorporates these techniques into a beautifully realised and exquisitely lit and filmed world of its own which is internally consistent and appealing. The music and sound design are outstanding, the acting is excellent, the dream sequences better realised than almost anything you could compare them with.

The other thing about the film is that it is often laugh out loud funny. Some of the musings and the meetings of the entomological society are absurd and hilarious. The end credits are particularly funny. The humour ensures a good balance of light and shade throughout the film.

Some viewers will, I am sure, find this film pretentious in the way that I found Berberian Sound Studio to be pretentious. For me though Strickland has here found a perfect balance of the mysterious, the beautiful and the erotic. It also passes the test of being a film that I keep thinking about days later, unlike most modern films whose details I forget the minute I leave the cinema.

It took two sessions for me to watch this drivel. I fell asleep about half way through and had to see part two the following day.

As far as I can make out this is about giant sea monsters vs transformers. Charlie Day and Burn Gorman play the gravediggers from Hamlet, badly. The two stars of Sons of Anarchy prove that they can't act their way out of a paper bag.

Meanwhile Idris Elba puts in an embarrassingly bad performance ( Imagine the key speech from Gladiator written and delivered by Worzel Gummidge.) Action has been replaced by acres of CGI that might satisfy an eight year old but will fail to impress sentient beings evolved beyond the level of igneous rocks.

The only redeeming feature of this film is that it is, at least, better than the pretentious and unoriginal nonsense that was Pan's Labyrinth.