Reviews

I haven't read the book, nor seen the Chinese series, which now I wish I had.

This starts out ostensibly as a pure sci-fi piece and shows a lot of potential and promise.

The premise with better than average production, direction, cinematography and finer details all make up for captivating, enchanting and curious viewing.

The story begins with a series of flashbacks which set up the rest of the story: a victim of Mao's cultural revolution is recognised as a brilliant physicist and employed to work in a state of the art, top secret astronomy station, where she deduces how to amplify radio frequencies that results in a message from outer space, warning her not to respond, yet she does.

The early episodes are replete with suspense, mystery and the overarching thrilling science fiction plot,which slowly reveals itself- until annoyingly, it meanders into territory exploring the sanctity of human life and love.

Many of the characters, as previous reviewers have spotted, seem and feel deliberately cast by looks, tokenism and forced DEI, with the women largely playing the saviours, moral arbitrator's and ethical righteousness in the face of the war-mongering, unfeeling patriarchal establishment.

Ultimately the story is about a race for survival between a distant alien species and ourselves. This forces humanity to look inwards, which is badly mishandled by the creators with the Oxford five serving as representatives of that inner search; resembling more of a soap opera than boldly exploring any existential philosophy or similar themes.

They ( santi ) have already made contact and are able to recruit a small number of devotees who are dedicated to ensuring their safe arrival.

Superior technology and communication is used to sabotage Earth's most cutting edge quantum physics projects and scientists in order for the santi to maintain their technological edge.

A vetting process via a futuristic VA headset is used to recruit the best and brightest minds to join the small but powerful sect of followers led by Mike Evans, an entrepreneur ( Jonathan Pryce).

The performances are adequate yet somewhat flat.

Rosalind Chao and Jess Hong play their parts well with Benedict Wong and Liam Cunningham adding some mild humour, yet there really isn't any stand outs.

The character of 'Auggie' played by Eiza González is one of the most unrealistic, irritating, repugnant and repulsive I've witnessed in awhile.

Her constant pouting, tantrums and bitter solipsism makes her almost unwatchable.

Coupled together with what South Park coined 'put a chick in it' serves only to detract and distract this viewer from connecting to any of the characters. She's not only unwatchable but unbelievable. Perhaps if she were twenty years older...

A grave mistake was made focusing so much time on the human themes of love and value of human life when the initial premise made for much greater storytelling.

It's not only trite, it assumes audiences are not able to follow a story based on hard science and philosophy of science-which should have been the main plot points, rather than the pointless wranglings about right and wrong which the protagonists keep falling into.

Despite all of this series obvious flaws, it does have some interesting, redeeming moments making it a worthwhile watch.

Those giving it a 10 with their ecstatic reviews And labeling those who vote down as idiots who just don't get it, fail to understand the gross mishandling of such a promising story and how frustrating that can be.

In fact those who vote it down while recognising its potential probably do so with a heavy sense of disappointment and reluctant cynicism.

The story is essentially about a young boy caught in the middle of a dysfunctional family consisting of Eli, Gus, and their single mother Frankie all wrestling with addiction, crime, family drama and relationships.

The 1980's suburban feel is just right and I was almost instantly captivated by this series, interested and involved in/with the characters especially the young lead 'Eli Bell' who exhibits great energy in both narration and acting.

Most of the supporting cast are also quite exceptional-except for Lapaglia: He was an odd, robotic caricature, automaton-type, whom my sister said looked like colonel Sanders.

The plot is mostly well paced and believable, although not always revealing enough.

The two young leads have to deal with constant conflict, upheaval and disappointment, with the morally challenged stepfather abruptly removed and mysteriously missing after his heroin dealing catches up with him.

His part is refreshing to see, as he has a strange positive influence on the vulnerable family.

Simon Baker was admirable as the alcoholic, agoraphobic bibliophile wracked with guilt and grief over past trauma - and is reluctantly thrust into the role of caretaker for his estranged young boys after their mother is sent to prison.

The film balances the overwhelming dark themes with good comedy, lighthearted moments and small outrageous adventures.

A few plot holes irritated me: what exactly happened before Lyle was abducted? Maybe I missed something.

How did Alex the bikie know when to turn up just in time to save the Bell family?

Worst of all is the last act: the older Eli has landed a job at a local paper and his minor celebrity colleague uncover a vast conspiracy involving police, lapaglia's ridiculous looking business leader, and a murderous maniac in Kroll.

They magically uncover a human experiment laboratory without any trouble, and everything devolves into a bizarre terminator type soap opera with everything tied up nicely into a neat bow.

Why the need for the over-the-top climactic finish?

It ruined part of the good will built up over the previous episodes, only partly forgivable.

However, I would still recommend this local series as it's well worth the time.

I was really engaged from the opening sequence in this film which felt edgy, daring, and not of the mould.

Based on the real 'beast of Jersey', the setting is small town, with Buckley playing a conflicted young woman trying to be just that under a domineering, controlling and manipulative mother.

She's saved by a mysterious misfit (Flynn) Pascal and their eyebrow raising relationship begins, with Moll rebelling, and Pascal a mysterious and also possibly guilty suspect in a string of murders of young women.

Moll has her own dark history, but she cannot resist the excitement and intensity of continuing the relationship as the danger becomes the all consuming flame.

Great performances, superb writing, a little patchy with interpersonal relationships in the 2nd act, but all this was subsumed by the visceral emotions pouring from our female lead.

Buckley is a talented actress and plays her part well. Her repressed rage is palpable and her mother despicable.

The rest of the cast are just incidental.

I thought the main underlying plot that we all have experienced gut wrenching rage/resentment, sometimes want to lash out at a world that confounds us - was going to stay true to the end but the last sequence ruins the authentic social commentary by turning 'Moll' into an agent of vigilante female justice.

Another moralistic, safe, trite ending to please god knows who.

And it's counter-intuitive. Moll is so completely in love with Pascal and wants to run away with him then at the last minute risks her life to be a superhero? SMH.

This becomes another in the long, long line of burgeoning female revenge plots.

Here, an open ending would have been far more brave and certainly left the audience definitely questioning-which is one of arts most important attributes.

Safe, predictable, and morally right is just boring, and inauthentic.

However don't let my bias prevent you from giving this a look, it's worth the experience.

The chief prosecutor of this case was Vincent Bugliosi, and early on once the perpetrators were arrested, realised that Manson did not have any direct evidence linking him to the crimes - only circumstantial, and the testimony of Kasabian.

So much like the enactment of the RICO predicates decades later, Bugliosi introduced exaggerated here-say creating a vast fantastical theory and narrative that put Manson in a godfather type role with delusions and theories about Helter Skelter, race wars, and other nonsense that had nothing to do with the motives for the murders.

Bugliosi is such a media hound he's probably appeared in more films playing himself than any other attorney in history.

I've also read his book of hyperbole, supernatural suggestion and partial evil deification of Manson who was able to make his watch stop in the middle of a hearing.

Bugliosi wanted to be famous, revered and respected and he wouldn't allow truth to get in the way.

If you want to know the real reason for the murders then here it is:

The murder of Gary Hinman over a drug debt lead to Manson family member Bobby Beausoleil being arrested and charged.

Manson wanted to free Bobby from jail, and because the word 'piggy' or similar was written in blood on the wall, Manson and his associates believed that carrying out a series of copy cat murders would convince authorities Beausoleil was not the perpetrator and he would be realeased.

Now, if you believe in the principle inherent in Occam's razor then once Bugliosi used in his book every larger than life character and sensational tropes like copying Rommel's armoured warfare tactics in the desert using buggies, ( introducing Nazism ), along with the other two exciting, shocking theories that Manson was an evil mentalist that could read people's minds and use mind control ( introducing black magic ), then the idea of sparking a race war ( playing and manipulating on the civil rights issue that was real at the time ) then throwing in for good measure a baseless theory that Manson felt slighted by the musical industry and planned to kill everyone from Frank Sinatra to Steve McQueen, then you complete an entire montage of sensational, fantastical, alluring, shocking, but above all interesting ideas that will surely play on as many peoples ignorance, curiosity, incredulity and interest above all.

Bugliosi turned this into a giant orchestrated media event in which he was the writer, director, and producer-feeding the masses bread and circus which they readily consumed.

He also invited conservative Americans to vindicate themselves by being able to point to these 'hippies' and say 'see they're no good! I knew it.' Additionally he planted the seed that these hippies were dangerous; and amongst us.

So he turned up the dial by frightening everyone, suggesting these innocent looking bright young things could come for you next.

In all Bugliosi put on an epic Faustian piece of theatre where ordinary motives and ideas, evidence were railroaded out of the court in favour of a with trial where Manson was the devil amongst us.

He incorporated, very cleverly but without ethics every fear based major motif, idea, icon and trope that exists.

No matter how you feel about the murders, this was not a fair and impartial trial. Worse still, a prosecutor lied, manipulated and cast himself as a media darling, a righteous crusader and the one man who knew the truth of these crimes.

Bugliosi's lies made a mockery of the legal system, he deliberately profited from it, and to hell with justice.

In essence he was as much of a master manipulator, show runner, bereft of ethics and justice as some of those he prosecuted.

He will still appear on any documentary 50 years later beating the same drum, spewing the same lies as he always had.

I'm not sure who I have more contempt for.

This has all the appeal of the most vapid, insipid, trite, and shallow reality shows ever made.

Why mess with a proven formula?

The contestants are just irritating, they get paint-balled when failing a test, yet pretend as if they've been shot?

How the show runners came to believe that making this into a fictional reality series would make it interesting I've no idea.

Oh, I forgot-it's the Netflix algorithm that seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator rather than renewing quality series T. V.

Where's Fargo? Mindhunter? Where's the multitude of quality series canned for no reason to give way for this made for mentally challenged teens?

There is no incentive to invest time into this series at all.

Wake up Netflix and screw your algorithm.

I'm absolutely convinced that without Dougray Scott's incredible performance, no matter all the hype promising influence from Irvine Welsh this crime drama would have quickly receded into obscurity.

There is absolutely nothing original in the story-this drama relies on the whirlwind unconventional methods of Scott's obsessive, self destructive style and despite his personal world imploding remains determined to capture a child murderer called, strangely 'the confectioner', for no known reason.

There are other annoyingly unrelated insignificant subplots that don't seem to make any sense nor contribute to the overall story with the rest of the cast mere footnotes in Scott's intense battle with the Confectioner.

For example his girlfriend receives a promotion as a H. R manager at her firm and is immediately pressed into the position of investigating a so called 'abuser' who's only real transgression is he's a womaniser.

Yet with the usual subtlety of a sledgehammer this subplot is framed as another example of workplace 'abuse', the abuser does nothing illegal, yet is a creep, but this somehow ties into a wider message the series is trying to convey-and I'm not entirely sure what that is?

That sexual abuse is endemic? That it's merely tipping its hat to the maligned 'me too' movement?

Of course violence against those deemed as not morally upright and conservative is acceptable with Scott's girlfriend head butting a co worker and declaring 'this is what happens when you turn a blind eye!'.

WTF?

Are we supposed to put child sex murderers on the same par with philanderers?

Are we all supposed to relentlessly root out any 'inappropriate' yet legal behaviour because little bambi's and victims need a superhero?

I really couldn't figure out this subplots point.

Then there are other seemingly whimsical subplots that pop up briefly with other characters without context.

Overall an engaging and intense story that inexplicably wanders off into bizarre political messaging or god only knows.

If it weren't for Scott's and also the villains performances I would have given this a 2.

Worth a watch.

'Drugs are only the symptom of the problem.' - Narcotics Anonymous.

While we have what is an engaging, compelling and polished overview of the so-called 'opioid crisis' - one of the few honest moments in this series is when 'Ms Flowers' ( who of course as they hero HAD to be African American - and almost all the villains white males; sigh ) admits that OxyContin is nothing new - and that is the point.

We now have fentanyl, benzo's and a whole litany of prescription drugs that are demonised in the media because around 2% of people have a predisposition to addiction.

What about the 98% that don't abuse their medication's?

Nobody cares about them which is the opposite of the essence of a utilitarian society.

I digress - there was quaaludes, barbiturates, tranquillisers and many more before Oxy.

So if you think about it people's choice to abuse drugs is one of the darker sides of having freedom of choice - of having 'body autonomy' - the right to choose without persecution what you do with your body.

The government doesn't own your body you do.

Are we the victims or the persecutors? Or both?

Do we want the right to choose or do we want a militant, unfeeling bureaucracy to decide whether you qualify for medication.

Here in Australia many sufferer's of PTSD are being force tapered off drugs like Xanax and Valium simply because it is a popular drug of abuse mixed with heroin that leads to overdose.

Again the 2% upend the lives of the 98% who use it and need it to function.

So although this series does expose corporate greed, injustice, and the wreckage that addiction causes of families and communities-attacking the drug doesn't solve the problem.

And history tells us that. It's just another facet of the pointless, futile war on drugs.

Decriminalisation is a step in the right direction- as long as there is enough treatment and support for those who are addicts.

Actually taking away peoples prescriptions often leads them to street drugs.

The bottom line again - and as a society we keep messing this up: it's not the drugs that are the problem it's the more complex underlying issues like mental health, employment, housing, community, broken families, trauma, and even deeper issues that drive people to abuse drugs: and let's not forget the worst drug of them all - alcohol, and also gambling.

So before you start cheering or gnashing your teeth, wringing your hands at those that facilitate the demand - ask yourself: what's driving the demand in the first place?

I really enjoyed this film going in, knowing little to nothing about it.

The production is slick and enticing, the narrative intriguing, with great performances from Pugh and co.

Then after building incredible tension it falls apart and reveals firstly it's a rip off of just about every major sci dystopian films and series from black mirror to the matrix and back again.

That's not to say there aren't some truly reflective points in this movie, but, as usual,

The third act overbearingly reveals this was just another attempt at feminist revision, revenge, misandry, contempt for men all dressed up as a complex sci fi film, which at one point ( and only one ) actually asks the audience whether they would choose ignorance over reality.

This is, however all submerged by a deus ex machina of misandrist design, ruining some of the greater, and quite frankly more important existential questions.

Overall a terrific effort yet again undone by petty, misguided, and factually inaccurate perceptions of gender politics AGAIN.

Hopefully one day we can look back on this era as feminism revenge films or whatever.

A good director leaves those questions skilfully to the viewers to make up their own minds, but Olivia shows her true colours in this swing and miss.

Many of us were sold a complete cover story about the events leading up to, during and after the siege at Waco, Texas.

Netflix is currently peddling yet another weak, sanitised account of what happened.

It is difficult in the least to accept the official version of accounts once one has watched this incredible documentary-which when I was directed to watch this from my university lecturer was constantly being taken down.

The ATF was desperate to justify its existence and the Branch Dravidian's presented the perfect opportunity for them to do so.

This was nothing short of torture, provocations, and finally murder.

Federal agencies tried to smear Karesh's character and alleged actions as justification for their criminal actions such as burning people alive with flame throwing tanks, then telling the public they burnt their own compound down.

This should serve as an example that law enforcement ought to return to the ethos of protect and serve rather than the semi-military, aggressive and adversarial doctrine and training that currently prevails.

A tragedy that could have been averted.

I won't pretend I know what the creators we're trying to express here; I gleaned my own interpretation-which is the hallmark of a great film, book or piece of music.

This felt like something similar to the matrix/sliding doors/twilight zone on steroids, except the central premise here is the idea that we live amongst a multiverse with any number of random and incredibly weird actions sending the characters along an almost infinite number of possible futures like branches.

What I saw was the interplay and conflict between metaphysical philosophies.

Centrally is the idea of scientific realism coupled with the concept of a multiverse - with its centre a representation of Nietzsche's 'eternal recurrence/return' as the bagel.

This naturally leads to nihilism-'nothing that we do matters'.

As the central character battles to come to grips with this new reality she discovers a dizzying array of wild, outrageous and at times downright weird aspects to her new existence.

Eventually she realises that her once loathsome normal, boring mind-numbing existence is where the ultimate change must take place: she must embrace new themes like authenticity, kindness, tolerance, compassion and the usual run of the mill trope about loving and caring for the simple things-and people in your life.

This is why I didn't give it a higher score.

However there are some amazing sequences and a sumptuous balance of violence, humour and just plan weirdness that makes for a great ride.

This film deserves all the accolades heaped upon it-it is a true work of art.