Reviews

This is a terrible effort from the writers of On the Buses. John Inman had become famous for his character of Mr Humphreys in the BBC sitcom Are You Being Served?, which was coming towards the end of its run and this feeble effort to give him his own starring sitcom on rival network.

The simple concept was to take a simple concept of a male boss and female secretary and reverse the roles with the boss being female (played by dramatic actress Rula Lenska) and have Inman as the male secretary. Sound hilarious? Of course it isn't. Despite Inman trying his best, the scripts are truly awful and this should never have got past the pilot stage. But Southern Television thought that there was enough there to commission six episodes. Unsurprisingly it never made it to a second series.

So what is wrong with it? Where do I begin. How about the horrible theme music for one. It's supposed to be futuristic sounding synth sounding but it just grates and dates it horribly. Then there's the cheesy introduction. John Inman walks into the office halfway through someone's conversation and the audience clap his appearance like it's some awful American sitcom from the 1970s. Then there's the dreadful film set of '8 Star', the company where he works. It makes the set of Grace Brothers look positively epic in comparison. And then the show limps along until the commercial break with some feeble plot point.

That this show has been forgotten about for 40 years until TPTV started reshowing it speaks volumes. Remember that this was showing in the same year as Only Fools and Horses made it's TV debut, a show superior to it in every way possible. And the following year we would have the Young Ones, a sitcom that was designed to rebel against shows like this. But even in 1981 this show must have looked pretty awful as much better sitcoms like The Good Life had already come and gone.

John Inman was a one trick pony in some ways but he deserved a better star vehicle than this load of rubbish. Worth watching just to see how NOT to make a comedy show.

This is actually one of Statham's better films of the last few years. An original story about a mysterious agent seeking revenge on the despicable con men who indirectly caused the death of his friend and neighbor starts a chain of events that spiral out of control.

This is pretty standard stuff for Statham but it's very well directed by David Ayer and has a good solid cast. Statham was never particularly good at accents but at least his weird hybrid is explained in the story. However as expected he excels at the well filmed action sequences, and although there is a certain preposterousnesd that someone as distinctive looking as him can somehow keep evading capture without a disguise, his coolness in a gunfight is part of his charm. It's just the Stath doing what he does best, beating people up who step in the way of his retribution for an evil act.

There's blood, gore and violence as well as bad language (although he rarely swears here) and the film is a great popcorn movie providing you don't mind that sort of thing. Statham may not be the worlds greatest actor but he's not terrible either. He knows what he's doing in films like this and does it very well, especially with a solid director like Ayer behind the camera.

I am a big fan of early science fiction films (i.e. Pre-1960s) and this is considered the first Hollywood attempt at a serious sci-fi drama.

The film has its flaws. Just ten years after it was released it looked hopelessly out of date with the design of the rocket looking all wrong, the spacesuits bearing almost no resemblance to reality and the technology involved being wide of the mark. The story is total hokum too, bearing more resemblance to something HG Wells might have dreamt up but it also has its charms.

The first half of the film is almost propaganda, explaining the virtues of a capitalist society being the only realistic way to get to the moon. Yet bizarrely that is how things are going what with the likes of NASA turning to the likes of Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk to develop spaceflight vehicles. In a way this film is a clumsy and dated yet ironically logical way to explain it. However the second half of the film, from the actual moon landing to the end is by far the more interesting. The props may look fake and the effects crude but this is one of the first serious attempts to explain how a moon landing may occur. It's not really the film makers fault that they had no idea what a genuine landing would look like twenty years after the film was made. Some of the science is actually spot on even if the dialogue occasionally grates but the matte shots of the moon surface look great and the moon landing sequence (seen through the porthole) look like genuine Apollo footage. Kudos to the script for forseeing the landing overshooting the planned landing spot and almost running out of fuel, eerily foreseeing what would happen when Apollo 11 landed in July 1969 when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin had only a few seconds left of fuel when the landed on the surface having also overshot their planned spot,

As a very early effort shot in Technicolor there is much to appreciate here. You will have to forgive the fact that it is nearly three quarters of a century old and the film makers didn't have a crystal ball plus some obvious script errors (just look in the goofs section of the IMDB entry). It may not have the polished look of Forbidden Planet )possibly one of the best sci-fi movies ever made) made just 5 years later but then again that film had twice the budget of this. If you compare this film to the primarily B movies of the 1940s that dealt with space exploration you can see a definite jump in quality when you view this movie.

I came out of this movie with a huge smile on my face. After the sterile Tim Burton directed film of 2005 (a technically accomplished but soulless film) I never thought anyone would get anywhere near the warmth of the 1971 film. However Timothee Chalamet is just so likeable in this film and sings and dances very well. The music has some really wonderful songs too and they add to the overall fun of the film. Adults as well as children in the audience were visibly enjoying this movie.

The supporting cast help add to the warmth of the story, even the villains. Hugh Grant is wonderfully droll as well and provides some terrific dry humour. His Oompah Loompah make-up is so well done he actually genuinely looks like he walked off the set of Gene Wilder's 1971 classic.

My only grumble is that the film drags in a couple of places and probably needed a slightly tighter script. There are also a couple of horrible Americanisms in this film which feel out of place amongst a mostly British cast. However the cast give it their all (Olivia Colman and Tom Davis are in full on pantomime mode and enjoying themselves), and some terrific trick photography. The film also has some subtle and not so subtle nods to the 1971 Gene Wilder film which will appease a lot of older viewers.

Alongside the surprisingly excellent Puss in Boots: The Last Wish and Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse that came earlier this year, this is one of the most entertaining movies of 2023. It doesn't quite hit the heights of the same director's Paddington movies but it's still a huge amount of fun and easily the best film out this Christmas. Thoroughly recommended family viewing.

Had this film been made by another animation studio I'm sure people would be a little more accepting. Unfortunately for a film marking such an important milestone not just in Disney's history but in the history of movies, the film doesn't quite hit the mark.

It's difficult to exactly define the problem. It's nicely animated, has a typical Disney cute animal (the goat Valentino) and a fairly easy to follow story. However with the exception of a couple of songs, none of the music is terribly memorable and will be forgotten quite quickly, unlike Disneys previous animated film, Encanto from just two years previously. Also the heroine. Asha, is physically reminiscent of the character of Pocahontas from the 1995 Disney animated film of the same name.

The animation is pretty standard as is the script, with moments of humour spread throughout. But something is lacking that prevents the film from being memorable. Everything is so by the numbers as if a tick box check list was used. The script isn't sharp enough, the songs don't shine and even Chris Pine's voicing of the villain tries hard to keep the film alive but its not enough. Perhaps its because the film lacks surprises or truly memorable moments or perhaps its trying too hard to be self referential to the Disney legacy.

I was going to say that if this was say, a Dreamworks film then this would be more acceptable but even Dreamworks can come up with mini masterpieces like this years Puss in Boots: The Last Wish, a film that manages to be both more original and witty than this.

The Disney company, including Pixar and Marvel, have been knocking out some lacklustre films over the past couple of years, in fact too many. To make it worse they have also been expensive to make and the public have been indifferent about them leaving them to flounder at the box office. This is going to be yet another $200 million film that may barely scrape back its outlay. The aforementioned Puss in Boots sequel cost about half the budget of this film and was a better film. Encanto was less expensive than this film and had the benefit of great songs and a stronger story that allowed for repeated viewing. Disney have got to realise that throwing money at a production is no guarantee it will turn out to be great. Maybe they should try making a film with a reduced budget but a script that has fresh ideas and more wit and humour than we have here. It gives me no pleasure in saying that but on the evidence on display here is one of concern. The film is not a disaster but this is no classic either, just very average.

The dancing girls are the only polished act in this whole movie. Even the goons themselves were embarrassed about the final film (it was filmed at breakneck speed due to an extremely short filming schedule forcing them to improvise).

The only reason to watch this film is out of historical interest. It's amazing to see a then 27 year old Peter Sellers showing early signs of his incredible character range, something which would stand him in good stead in the years to come. Spike Milligan (who I once met) looks so young in this but is his usual zany self. Harry Secombe often seems a bit lost in this film, not having a proper script to follow and not knowing how to react to the improvisations going on around him. In some ways he was the most professional of the Goons.

And finally we see Michael Bentine, a man I associate with zany children's comedy from the 1970s. A unique looking individual who's appearance changed quite dramatically once he cut his hair and lost the beard ,Bentine left the goons soon after this movie was made so this film is a unique insight into the group before they became a trio.

It's a shame this film is almost unwatchable and not representative of the fledgling talent within. It tries to play out like a Marx brothers comedy, but contains none of the polish or acerbic wit of those films. However as a snapshot of what was to come it's an interesting curiosity.

This heartwarming but stirring film is a million miles away from some of blockbuster hits that Michael Caine has done in the past but it's deeply personal story shines through one of his best performances. Both him and Glenda Jackson were always watchable, even in films that weren't necessarily very good. They bring gravitas to a film including this one, and it takes this out of its television movie feel (well it was part financed by the BBC) and sets it up as a small scale but big hearted view of a true story.

Both Caine and Jackson show their acting chops and help propel this film into a film that really deserved it's critical praise and help to disguise it's modest budget. An excellent supporting cast of mostly unknowns do good work as well plus John Standing's wonderful performance as an RAF veteran wrestling with his own demons gives the film an extra dimension.

The direction is unshowy but perfectly fine for a film of this scale, with some very nice visual flourishes every now and again. The music blends seemlessly into the film and it's not over edited so quite a few tracking shots to give everything a sense of the unhurried. The film crams a lot into its 90 minutes but that works in it's favour as it is never boring. It's also thought provoking, deeper than you might think but for every tear-jerking scene there some dark humour woven into the script that had the audience laughing.

This is a terrific final film for Glenda Jackson to be remembered for and should Michael decide to retire from acting as he hinted at during its premiere, then the same would go for him and be an excellent finale to a 60 year movie career that has encompassed the good (Zulu, The Italian Job, Get Carter, Ipcress File, Educating Rita, Muppet Christmas Carol and many more), the bad (Jaws the Revenge, the Poseidon adventure sequel, Bullseye, Blue Ice and many more) and the indifferent (A shock to the system, The Honorary consul and many more). This definitely falls into the good. Having fallen into doing ensemble films like the Dark Knight trilogy and Now You See me 1&2, it's great to see him (possibly) finish his film career on a high and back as a leading man in a humble but worthy modern British film like this.

This mix of Joe 90 type special agents being shrunk to six inch high puppets in the real world and fighting crime is not of one Gerry Andersons finest hours. A not disiimilar idea had been tried out in the US TV show 'Land of the Giants' a few years previously, of which this feels like a pale variation. This has a hurried feel to it and the idea is not just silly but also makes almost no sense. Fortunately Anderson abandoned the idea after this pilot as I suspect the scriptwiters would have run out of ideas quite quickly. I think Anderson dodged a bullet here when this didn't go beyond this expensively made pilot episode.

This film was a bit of a surprise as I actually quite liked it.

2023 has been a year of disappointment from both DC and Marvel with only Guardians of the Galaxy 3 and parts of The Flash redeeming either of the respective studios. Perhaps superhero fatigue is setting in or perhaps the studios are running out of ideas but with the bar set so low this film is actually quite entertaining.

Coming across as a more comedic mash-up of Iron Man and Venom, it certainly isn't flawless as it is guilty of some shonky digital effects in a few places and is a little bit predictable too but it has a big heart, an unknown but charismatic lead, an engaging turn from. Susan Sarandon as the villain and a nice family orientated plot.

The film is nicely plotted and doesn't feel overly long either, which makes a nice change in a film of this type. It very loosely connects with the DCEU, making a fleeting reference to Superman and Gotham City. There is no brooding of the main character and the plot doesn't feel particularly flabby. There is a touch absurdity but it's generally for comic effect and most of the gags work. Seeing as the DCEU era is coming to an end, this is actually a decent effort to go out on. It may not be a classic of its kind but it hasn't been massively hyped either, making it a pleasant and fun surprise.

I was expecting this little film to be a superficial hero worship of a man that made entertainment for kids worldwide for quite a few years, especially as it was produced by his youngest son, Jamie.

However to my surprise, Jamie (who is presenter and co-producer) allows this interesting documentary to get quite dark. He is more interested in the man behind the legendary productions like Thunderbirds, Stingray, Space:1999, Joe 90 and Captain Scarlet than the actual productions themselves. It is a calculated gamble that the audience would be too but it pays off in spades.

We learn another side to his father, some of which we already knew, some of which we didn't. The driving force behind his incredible imagination, his miserable childhood of near poverty, a manipulative and bitter mother, his sadness at how it affected his relationship with his father, a terrible family tragedy in WWII, being a victim of anti-semitic bullying at school and how it affected his education and how he struggled with his relationships with women and his deep regrets at the carnage of his first two marriages. Whilst Gerry portrayed a fun world for children in his legendary television series, he himself had a childhood to forget.

This film pulls no punches, with Jamie's own memories of his father (Gerry was 57 when Jamie was born) being a mixture of fun but also sadness as he saw his own dad fall victim to dementia and robbing him of his own memories to a point where he didn't recognize people anymore. There are also archive clips from people who worked with Gerry who are openly critical of Gerry's personality and what they thought of him. Much like Willie Wonka in Roald Dahl's book, beneath the fun surface of the man there lurks a deeply troubled person.

It can't have been easy for Jamie to learn that not everyone thought his father was wonderful but fair play to him for sharing it with us. If anything it humanizes him . We learn that although Gerry was a very innovative, forward thinking and creative man, he was also a lousy businessman. He got lucky in that he made his biggest shows for impressario Lew Grade and his ITC company. Grade cut Anderson a lot of slack and showed faith in him but even then he would pull him up if he wasn't happy over some of Andersons decisions. Anderson also had a nasty, expensive and vicious divorce from Sylvia that dragged on for years. That too is addressed here and this is one of the few flaws in this film as I felt it a little bit one sided. As Sylvia died in 2016 and her daughter from her first marriage refused to be interviewed it obviously wasn't possible to obtain her perspective but I would have liked to have heard more from someone who knew her as there are always two sides to an argument.

The documentary uses A I generated scenes to animate audio taped interviews that Anderson had recorded a few years before his death. This is the other issue I had with the documentary as although the filmmakers tried to do something different in order to use these recordings, I felt that the A I was a bit obvious, despite them trying to disguise it. However that was a minor quibble in comparison to the mine of information in this documentary.

All in all this is a warts and all film that fleshes the man out and shows he was actually a far more complicated man than I guess most fans realised. He as both a pioneer but also very naive too. He had huge success but then lost it all. Jamie addresses the fact that the successful 'Terrahawks' TV series (1983) led to a resurgement of interest in the man and his back catalogue and he was able to get his life back on track after a decade where the offers had dried up. Anderson wasn't a big fan of Terrahawks but it did his career a power of good.

All in all, a bold but worthy watch with a very moving last half hour.

I saw this rather dull and odd drama when it was shown 15 years ago on BBC4 and had, unsurprisingly, forgotten all about it. But in 2023 the BBC showed it again and I can see why I had forgotten it.

Frankie Howerd was a British comedy legend, a master raconteur and a complicated man. However very little of what made him popular comes across in this rather boring tv movie. The film seems to be obsessed by his closet homosexuality and relationship with Dennis Haymer. It also finishes in the early 1970s, just as . About twenty years before he died, missing out a large chunk of his later career.

David Walliams may have been a huge fan of Howerd but he gives a strange interpretation of the character, lacking in conviction and a bit bland, whilst Rafe Spall and the late Dilys Laye seem very underused. Out of all the 'comedy greats' season TV movies that were shown on BBC4 in 2008, this is by far the least interesting and adds very little to the Howerd legend. Walliams seems a bit out of his depth too and the dullness of the script really doesn't help. And the way the film ends is what inspired me to say 'Is that it?' as the title of this review, because that genuinely was my reaction.

Somehow I had never seen this film until recently, despite being 50 years of age. However I happened to catch this film one afternoon on tv and seeing as I had never read the book I decided to give it a watch.

Most 'social issue' films of the past lose their edge over time, but this is one of those rare films that packs a punch. It boldly addresses poverty, crime, injustice, alcoholism, exploitation of the common man, corporate greed, the good and bad side of workers unions and so much more. No wonder this film was so divisive and controversial. Powerful performances all round the lack of a happy ending. The journey of the Joad family from the poverty of the mid-west to being sold the dream in California only to be exploited is a tough story to absorb but this film does it.

It also doesn't shy away from subjects such as death, Police brutality and mistreatment of the poor by the wealthy. If anything this film bursts the balloon of the American dream. Henry Fonda is totally relatable as Tom Joad, the everyman from a simple sharecropping family who lives through and witnesses all this. No angel himself, he refuses to give up trying despite obstacle after obstacle. He meets good people and bad along the way. He sees his childhood friend turn to drink, he sees people in his family die and has to bury them because he cannot afford a funeral, he sees an innocent woman die from the bullet of an incompetent Policeman aiming at someone else. Yet he also meets a straight up government landowner who offers him and his family a fair deal, a policemen from the same county as him offering him sound advice and charity from a cafe owner who sympathises with his plight. The film is unsurprisingly short on laughs but there is some dark humour. The film also boasts some admittedly dated but still strong acting.

It's easy to see how this film might be viewed as 'Un-American' as it tells of a life without wealth or comfort. Whilst films like 'The Wizard of Oz' showed a humble existence on a farm, the folk were still happy and content. None of that is in evidence here, just a harsh life firstly a s poor farmers and then on the road as itinerant workers. The film also goes some way to justifying why unionisation occurs and the underhand practices being used to stop it by those who see it as a hindrance to their business practice.

Don't let the fact this film was made in black and white put you off. This is a powerful story well told by John Ford. It was also quite brave of Twentieth Century Fox to let him make it, knowing it was bound to be controversial (and apparently the script toned down some parts of the book to appease the censors). Definitely worth watching in my opinion.

What I like about Wes Anderson is he's an original storyteller and has a unique style. He gets good casts in his film and they are usually a feast for the artistic eye, with an amazing color palette and unusual framing. They also tend to have a wry sense of humour along with strangely written but snappy dialogue.

Unfortunately I took a huge dislike to this film. I felt it over indulged and a great cast was wasted on an original but badly written storyline. Whilst the visuals and photography are again excellent, there just seemed to be something missing (as well as Bill Murray). The story didn't gel, his use of CGI was quite obvious and although his films do test the grey cells, this was one step too far. It also had a fragmented narrative style and although Scarlett Johanson was the standout actor in it, you know something isn't right when. Jeff Goldblum is barely in it and has almost nothing to do. Deep in this mess of a film is a really good idea but the implementation is uneven. The script should have been so much sharper (like it was in Anderson's excellent Grand Budapest Hotel) but it feels overcooked and pretentious.

I'm sure this film will have it's fans who will disagree with my thoughts but I was hugely disappointed and it is primarily down to the screenplay and the script. The colour palette is a riot for the eyes as usual and the soundtrack unusual but not unpleasant, yet I found Anderson's previous effort, The French Dispatch (a film that has its flaws) easier to watch.

Sorry but I'm not a fan of this effort. I hope his next effort recaptures the magic that WA is known for.

I'm not the world's greatest Take That fan but even them I'm familiar enough with some of their songs to have enjoyed this moderately budgeted but fun if cheesey juke box musical.l based on the stage musical of the same name.

The plot follows a gang of teenage girls and how their friendship is tested over a quarter of a century, with the music of Take That (here just referred to as 'The Boys') becoming almost the only thing holding them together. When one wins tickets to see The Boys at a reunion concert in Greece she has to awkwardly contact her old friends who she hasn't seen for years to ask them to go. Old wounds are opened and arguments happen as they find their friendship tested, all the while dealing with the shadow of a tragedy from years ago.

The film isn't exactly deep but the acting is fine (comedienne Aisling Bea being surprisingly good). Obviously the music is the real draw and it's used well enough although the hit song song 'Shine' is wasted in the film and really should have been used for the finale.

The product placement for easyJet grates a bit but is probably a result of the production budget and small scale of the film. However if you can overlook this then this is a harmless if predictable film that won't change your world but might bring a smile to your face.

The story of Harold Fry's 500 mile walk from Devon to the English border with Scotland is well translated to the big screen by director Hettie MacDonald in this low key but very watchable film. When retired Brewery manager Harold (Jim Broadbent) receives a letter from an old work colleague that she is dying in a hospice at the the other end of the country in Berwick-upon-Tweed, he writes a letter. However feeling it is not enough, he cannot bring himself to post it and, after talking to a shopgirl in a petrol station, decides on the spot to walk to see her, leaving his wife Maureen (Penelope Wilton) sick with worry and frantic about being on her own. As Harold makes his way up north his 'Pilgrimage' starts to become public knowledge and he soon attracts a following on both social media and then the headline news. On the journey he meets an assortment of characters, from a well meaning and helpful Slovakian woman, a woman on a farm, a stranger at a railway station, a pill popping confused 18 year old, a stray dog and a small following of people who want to join his pilgrimage. And as Harold makes his journey we start to learn that his life and relationship with Maureen is not as boring as it seems, for beneath the surface he is masking a terrible tragedy and a fractured relationship.

The story might be slight but I found it nonetheless compelling. Both Broadbent and Wilton produce powerful performances and as the film progresses their characters personalities start to make sense. The film is also well made and full of good performances and doesn't feel overlong.

If you've seen the Timothy Spall film 'The Last Bus' (2021), the Robert Redford film 'A Walk in the Woods' (2015) or the Emilio Estevez/Martin Sheen film 'The Way' (2010) then some of this may seem vaguely familiar to you as, like them, this is a gentle road movie that is in part, about using the journey as a way of self discovery and confronting ones own emotional issues that will appeal to older viewers in particular. It is a well acted drama with a ring of truth to it that should appeal to those enjoy gentle drama.

Nike are now synonymous with sports and sportswear, and Adidas's great rivals, however it wasn't always that way and this little film explains how they did it.

This film started off as a made for streaming movie, small(ish) in scale and with a decent but not spectacular budget. However the casting of Matt Damon and Ben Affleck (both in front of and behind the camera) really brought it up to another level. Whilst the final result still feels like a glorified TV movie, Damon is excellent as usual and for once Affleck doesn't seem to be punching above his weight as an actor. This is actually a very well made and acted film, although the slight story may not be to everyone's taste.

Viola Davis and Julius Tannon also turn in a good performances as Michael Jordan's devoted parents. There are also solid turns from Chris Tucker (looking a few pounds heavier than the last time I saw him in anything worthwhile) and Jason Bateman amongst others.

It's an interesting subject matter and I enjoyed the soundtrack too (many 80s songs of my youth) although it does have a lot of swearing so may not be appropriate for all. Ben Affleck is a very capable director and this is another good movie from him. If you enjoyed more recent biopic films like 'The Founder' and 'Steve Jobs' then you should enjoy this.

Peter Capaldi is wonderfully po faced in this satirical fake documentary about (the non-existent) Cricklewood film studios. He really convinces as he talks about the history of the place, the productions made there and the people who were involved, from characters parodying the likes of Buster Keaton. Gracie Fields and the now forgotten Andrew Keir.

Capaldi's film buff talks lovingly (with the odd clip thrown in) about the with great satirical wit and is really convincing, with only the odd comment to remind you this is a spoof based on the likes of the old Elstree, Hammer, Walton on Thames or Highbury studios. I thoroughly enjoyed this and would recommend looking around the internet for it to all with a black sense of humour and for fans of British films in general.

Despite this film being very derivative I still found it reasonably entertaining. Good visual effects help to paper over the slight story and whilst I know Adam Driver has his fans, I have always found him a bit charmless and lacking in personality and I think it is evident here.

The most obvious film to compare this to would be Jurassic World, but as I watched it I started to be reminded of the classic 1987 Arnold Schwarzenegger film 'Predator'. Obviously this film is nowhere near as violent or gory but the premise was not massively dissimilar.

All in all, this film isn't bad but not a classic.

One of the things I enjoyed about the first film was that it was something a bit different from Marvel. It was a low key film with a neat script and doses of comedy that was a nice distraction and pretty much unconnected from the more po-faced world of the Avengers films. Unfortunately though something seems to have gone wrong here.

Firstly we have a story that is a partial rehash of other more recent MCU storylines (baddie wants to be an all conquering god-like presence by destroying anyone who stands in his way). Secondly the actor playing that baddie just seems like a wrong bit of casting as. Jonathan Majors (as Kang) seems to lack much gravitas. I'm afraid I found Majors turn in the role a bit hammy too, being unconvincing and far too two dimensional.

I also found the film was cherry picking ideas out of other MCU films like GOTG ( races of weird looking aliens) for one. The story lacks originality, reminding me of Avatar, and the script full of obvious cliches. And both these points in mind I think that, after the last Thor film, Marvel is running out of ideas and its becoming obvious.

Whilst it's great having older actors like Michael Douglas and Michelle Pfeiffer in these movies, there were times they genuinely seemed embarrassed when they delivered their dialogue. Also the film badly overuses green screen and at times it started to resemble the Star Wars prequels of 20 years ago, with massive CGI battles providing the 'spectacle'.

I'm sorry Marvel/Disney but you will have to do better than this sloppy mess Having a charming leas actor just isn't enough to save a film. You have to bring something original to the table too. I thought the recent Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness had it's issues but there was enough originality and novel ideas from Sam Raimi in it to keep it interesting. The same goes for Spider-Man-No Way Home, an overlong film but made watchable by a good story and enough crowd pleasing surprises and to keep it interesting. And whilst Ant-Man doesn't have that legacy, I still think the makers could have done better here.

To summarise I found this to be an empty film. It has nothing new to add and feels bloated despite it being one of the shorter Marvel movies. If they had kept the story from getting overblown like this it might have stopped it resembling a dozen other movies. Marvel have had a few critical duds of recent and badly need to rethink their plan if they want to keep their loyal audience from losing interest. If I'm honest, the only film on their slate that I'm genuinely looking forward to at the moment is Deadpook 3.

Why is Disney remaking it's classic back catalogue? This is yet another soulless effort, much like The Lion King was. Robert Zemeckis,a talented director, seems to have lost his way of recent and has gone from entertaining original films to drivel like this. Tom Hanks also has a career mis-step here, his usual good judgement in taking roles fogged by his loyalty to Zemeckis. Come on guys, up your game...you are better than this drivel. Disney can do better as well, Encanto proved Disney can still make quality animation when they make an effort.

Stear clear of this and watch the 1940 original instead.

I really feel for Pierce Brosnan's tenure as 007. He was actually a very good fit to reboot the series. He was good looking, had the grace, wit and charm to pull off the character and was a decent actor. All the ingredients were there but in the 7 years he played Bond he never got a decent script and all the films seemed hurriedly written and filmed.

This film, the 2nd of the 4 he made, is probably the best IMHO. It has an excellent pre-credits sequence where 007 disrupts a terrorist weapons bazaar and a terrific stunt involving him stealing a jet fighter. However after that it becomes a bit ho-hum with a daft plot involving a baddie who is clearly modelled on a mixture of Rupert Murdoch/Robert Maxwell/Bill Gates/William Randolph Hearst and his attempts to start WWIII in order to become the most powerful media mogul in the world. He is also aided and abetted by a henchman called 'Mr Stamper' who is clearly incompetent as he tries and fails several times to kill 007 and Chinese agent Wai Lin

The Bond films have had issues in the past with good directors complaining that they are given big budgets but incredibly tight shooting schedules. That seems to be the case here as Roger Spottiswoode is a very competent if unspectacular director. In the past Bond movies tended to have a smallish rota of directors (Terence Young/Guy Hamilton./John Glen/Lewis Gilbert./Peter Hunt. All who knew the template to making an entertaining Bond movies and the producers expectations. When the series was resurrected in 1995, respected director Martin Campbell (with a long list of solid UK TV action and drama behind him) made an admirable job of bringing Brosnan's 007 to the screen and into the 1990s. However that film had a very rushed feel to it as evidenced by some of the ropey VFX, Sean Bean's very Yorkshire accent, some one dimensional characters plus, again, the script could have done with a polish. In TND the visual look of the film is superior and the effects look great but the film still feels strangely underwhelming. Brosnan gives it his best shot but I suspect he knew the script wasn't great and there are scenes where I think I could have written snappier dialogue and a chance for some killer one liners to add some humour.

There are some good scenes in the film (the car chase in the car park for one) and the movie might now be 25 years old but it is quite prescient in predicting the importance of GPS, the rise of the importance of the mobile phone and how easy it would be to start a third world war between the east and the west.

Michelle Yeoh does bring a different dynamic to the film as 007s opposite number in the Chinese secret service, although the cynic in me suspects that this was also an attempt to tap into the Chinese market. Teri Hatcher has surprisingly little to do other than get deuced by Bond and there is also some very blatant product placement (not really the directors fault as he would have been under instruction from the producers) although the stunt team are as impressive as ever. Yet I also think the script could have been so much better. One example is that there is a missed opportunity to dig a little deeper into Brosnan's Bond psyche. Brosnan certainly had the dramatic chops to do it and there is a terrific space in the storyline to give him room to bare his soul (like Roger Moore got in For Your Eyes Only and Dalton got in Licence to Kill), but the chance was missed and with it the chance for Brosnan to really expand the character.

This is an entertaining but shallow film that ticks the right boxes but somehow feels like a comic book too. It was not a trouble free production by any means, with Jonathan Pryce being a last minute replacement for Anthony Hopkins (who apparently walked away from the film after three days in disgust due to the hurried nature of the filming and the lack of a finished script). That it was still a hit despite its anarchic filming schedule and unmemorable theme song by Cheryl Crow shows does paper over the cracks (the cracks would become even more noticeable in the two films that followed this).

Watching this I cannot help but think Brosnan deserved better during his tenure. A wasted opportunity.

I went into this film expecting a blatant soulless and charmless attempt by Warner Bros to set up a new franchise to suck youngsters into the corporate money making machine and get them interested in the more adult DCEU. However, despite some of that being true I have to say I was surprised how charming this film was.

The animation is very good and the voice cast is great (with Kevin Hart particularly well suited). The film is also full of little nudges and winks to previous DC superhero films and the opening scene is a particularly good homage to the original 1978 Superman film. There are also enough sly jokes in the script to keep grown up DC fans entertained (including one about a moustache that should keep Zack Snyder fans happy) and a couple of decent musical cues too.

My only grumble is that this film is slightly too long and I could hear children asking their parents to take them to the toilet. Personally I think this film should have been cut down to 90 minutes, partly because of the target audience attention span and partly because it does get bogged down in a couple of places with unnecessary detail that add nothing to it.

All in all this is a better than expected film. Despite my reservations going into the cinema to see it I was won over by how well made it is. It's perhaps slightly more violent than I would have expected and there are a couple of swear words bleeped out (at least in the UK version, not sure about other countries). However for a film aimed at the 5-11 year olds it is actually a really enjoyable effort.

Part of the negativity here is that some people seem to be reacting like it is blasphemy to make a sequel of sorts to a stone cold classic like the 1970 version is. Yes, its not one of those rare beasts (like Star Trek - The Wrath of Khan, Godfather II, or The Empire Strikes Back) that manages to pull of the impossible and be better than the classic film before it, but its not as terrible as some here would have you believe either. In fact if you can just forget for one second about the huge shadow Lionel Jeffries beloved 1970 film, this is actually quite a watchable and entertaining film. And to those who have been saying this film is ruined by woke politics....well I hate to break it to you but the basic background of black American G. I.s being given a particularly unjustified hard time by their own side during WWII is actually based on fact (look at the Jim Brown character in 1967s The Dirty Dozen to see the same type of thing). In fact I think this is a decent effort to tell a story about an injustice just as the original film did.

The cast are fine with Beau Gadson as Lily being a standout. Sheridan Smith turns in a good performance too as Annie, although Tom Courtenay seems like he's been squeezed into the plot and Jenny Agutter seems to have not a lot to do (which is odd because she was the heart and soul of the original). The impact of war on the children is reasonably well dealt with too in a way that isn't patronising for youngsters.

My only real grumble is a technical one. The overuse of edits and of hand held camerawork in the first half of the film was really annoying, especially as the original had a much more natural flow to the visuals which i'm surprised teh director here didn't try and emulate. Also the colour palette is strangely muted here with greens and browns overwhelming the picture. Admittedly that may have been intentional considering that this is supposed to be wartime, but maybe that was intentional? I also found the language felt out of place. Lionel Jeffries would never let coarse words like 'Fart' into his script and it felt like unnecessary pandering to a young audience.

This is not a bad film. Actually it's quite a decent one (even if it lacks an ending as powerful and tear-jerking as the original). A film about people for a family audience that offers the viewer something more traditional than yet another comic book adaptation or another CGI animation film. After seeing yet another soulless American multinational corporate feature film last week, to me it was nice to see this as it wasn't trying to sell me a toy, a happy meal or hook me into a franchise. For that I was thankful. Sure, films with Minions have their place but its nice that there is a humanity to a film like this. However the film never quite escapes the massive shadow of it's 52 year old forebearer (which people forget did have some cheesy moments). This film shouldn't be criticised just because it exists, I am just acknowledging its flaws. We should be happy that this is at least something different as opposed to the filmmakers not being silly enough to attempt to remake the original.

To sum up then, this is an inferior if watchable sequel to one of the most beloved films ever to come out of the UK. It is not great but nor is it terrible, it's just not going to be as memorable and celebrated 52 years after it was released (unlike the original which was lightning in a bottle).

I found this to be an interesting attempt at making a big budget fantasy movie. The visuals in this movie appear to be inspired by the likes of Conan the Barbarian or John Boorman's Excalibur (made a few years previously). The use of fog, woodlands and big sets showed decent production values. However I also found some of this film to be quite jarring and in some places it really screams '1980s'.

Rutger Hauer seems strangely subdued, although Matthew Broderick is good value (despite his strangely strangulated non-descript accent). John Woods priest is almost a prototype for Alan Rickman's Sherriff of Nottingham in 'Robin Hood - Prince of thieves' 6 years later but the up and coming star, Michelle Pfeiffer, seems to be wasted in her role in retrospect.

At the time, Richard Donner was a hot director in Hollywood but I think this film is a slight mis-step in his career. He does a decent enough job even if the photography sometimes goes a bit OTT with the obvious use of filters in places. Also the medieval castle walls seem to be made of modern red-brick, something that just seems out of place.

I really wanted to like this film more but you get the distinct impression it has a B movie script but with A list production values hence why I feel it seems disjointed. Films like Hawk the Slayer or The Beastmaster were also fantasy pics from the same era and also had better than average production values for their genre , but Ladyhawke appears to have had a lot of money thrown at it (it was a Warner Bros/Fox co-production) but it doesn't appear to have worked (hence the disappointing box office).

I wanted to like this film more than I did. I found it a bit laborious, I found the use of 80s synthesizer music to be highly dated now and although the visuals are easy on the eye, the whole package seems strangely out of sorts for me. Sorry.

Although there are lots of TV detectives (some very compulsive watching too) and feature length episodes are nothing new (as epitomized by Colombo), there is something compelling about Frost. The stories are usually pretty good and never light, fluffy or jokey, the supporting cast is great as well (including some future star names like Damien Lewis and Marc Warren), but the real star is of course Sir David Jason. He brings a certain charm and empathy to the role and even if the story might start to drag (which occasionally happens) he is never anything less than watchable. His witticisms, magnetism, inspired insight and occasional screw ups just add hugely to fleshing out the character. His acting is also superb and despite the baggage he brought as 'Del Boy' from his other much loved tv incarnation, it is a testament to his skill that you quickly forget that this is actually the same actor.

The scripts vary from the excellent to the ok, but that doesn't matter as watching the interaction of the characters throughout each series is just as compelling.

A terrific TV series that still stands up 30 years after it was first shown.