Reviews

This film has not aged well! The film revolves around a single joke- Ryan Reynolds in a fat suit playing a dorky teen in love with his glamorous best friend, and then suddenly he becomes Ryan Reynolds and the best friend (Amy Smart) fancies him. Because the plot is so run-of-the-mill, Anna Faris is brought in to play a bunny boiling superstar singer who has no talent and relies on manic sex appeal. She is, as intended to be, an incredible nuisance.

Ostensibly it's a rom-com except there's no rom (film seems geared towards men rather than women). The concept of the 'friend zone' is all based around the idea that if a guy is nice to a woman and acts as a friend, she is obliged to have sex with him. Amy Smart as the best friend comes off as a shallow jerk as it basically implies she only fancies him now because he's thin. Reynolds' character is too much of an entitled jerk for us to root for him and there's no chemistry.

The only funny character in it is the love rival Dusty (played by Chris Klein) but that's not enough reason to watch a film that's not even trashy in a fun way.

For those who have no knowledge of Golden Age Hollywood, skip this as the humour is very much based on in-jokes.

Fans of Golden Age Hollywood will enjoy the pastiches of Hollywood films- a sword and sandals epic starring George Clooney, an Esther Williams swimming film starring Scarlett Johansson, a stagey drawing room comedy directed by Ralph Fiennes and a Gene Kelly style musical clearly based on On The Town, starring Channing Tatum. Unfortunately this collection of pastiches doesn't come together into a great film. Josh Brolin's fixer character is boring and the kidnap plot is very dull (and relies on another Golden Era Hollywood in-joke that only cinephiles will get- even as one myself I was bored with that element).

Removing the kidnap plot and giving more screen-time to the other characters (Ralph Fiennes role is pretty much just a cameo) would have improved it considerably. I can see they were aiming for a similar style of comedy to Singin' in The Rain, which parodies the arrival of the talkies. Aldren Ehrenreich gives easily the best and funniest performance as a star of cowboy pictures forced to star in Ralph Fiennes' stiff mannered comedy; this shows what the film could have been but missed the opportunity.

Whilst the film is by no means a masterpiece, it has some great moments. The first 30 minutes, in which special agent Chet Desmond (Chris Isaak) and partner (Kiefer Surherland) investigate the murder of the first victim, Theresa Banks, are irrelevant to the rest of the film as that plot thread completely disappears. I believe the intention was to creare a series of films but as that didn't go ahead, skip the first 30 minutes (which are the closest to the tone of Twin Peaks in that they are surreal, some offbeat humour as well as the horror of the murder). David Bowie's cameo is miniscule.

The film really centres on the last week of Laura Palmer's life. Although the plot points aren't new to anyone who's watched Twin Peaks- they might even be used as flashbacks in the TV show were the content turned down- it is interesting to explore Laura's life through her eyes. In Twin Peaks the series, Laura is seen through different people's eyes so that they each have their 'version' of her, but here we get to see the nightmare, even darker than the show and the same level of surrealness. It's very Lynchian- i.e. Dreamlike/nightmarish with more nudity and violence than could ever have been shown on the TV show.

Moira Kelly is a good recast as Donna and it was great to see their friendship, perhaps the only real light in Laura's life.

As for Kyle MacLachlan as Dale Cooper, he's in it for a small amount in the first 30 minutes and then the final shot, so really the main draw is whether you want to see Laura's experience depicted on screen. Sheryl Lee as Laura gives a powerful performance that reflects the magnetic power Laura held over Twin Peaks residents.

Do not watch this film if you haven't watched the TV show as major plot points are revealed; if you have already watched the show, you won't get any more clues as to meaning. It's just a very powerful character study with some shocking moments even though we know who the killer is, and a woozy nightclub scene which feels dreamlike and nightmarish.

I thought the premise sounded cute- rom-coms aren't exactly a realistic portrayal of love so why not use the premise of fate to make the coincidences make 'sense'?

Jon (John Cusack) has a typical 'meet cute' with a pretty woman Sara (Kate Beckingsale). Despite both of them having partners, after a bit of chatting and a fun evening Jon is ready to chuck his girlfriend. Sara is a big believer in fate so when she finally agrees to give her name and number, the piece of paper she's written it on blows away! So she plays some silly game about if they get on separate elevators and get off at the same floor it's some sign that they're meant to be together. She also writes her name and number in a book and John writes his on a five dollar note- if they're meant to be together, the items will find their way to the other person.

What the movie calls 'a few years later' but which actually turns out to be seven, both Jon and Sara have new serious partners. Jon's fiancee is barely even a character and Sara's fiance is a pretentious New Age musician that provides the laughs. But of course Jon and Sara are still hung up on each other so even though they are in serious relationships, decide to chuck it away, thus fitting in with their previous jerkiness of seven years ago. Jon is particularly creepy, coming off as an unhinged stalker at times.

The film exemplifies the worst values of romcoms- that you can fall in love without needing to know anything about a person and that you can get away with cheating and acting like a jerk because 'true love' wins out. Cusack and Beckinsale also lack the chemistry that would make you believe they were destined to end up with each other.

Sleepless in Seattle, whilst still having the stalker element, is a much better and nuanced portrayal of the same idea.

I love an all-star cast and really enjoyed the ensemble approach that Richard Curtis pulled off so well in Love Actually. I also love a holiday film and unlike other reviewers, I think New Year's Eve makes a natural choice with the themes of second chances, old endings and new beginnings. However the reason why Love Actually worked so well is that they were based around characters, with some substantial storylines that could almost be their own film, some sentimental and others just light gags. New Year's Eve is like someone taking all of the gag storylines and rather than paying any thought to character, entirely focuses on the novelty of big stars. The connections feel very contrived and tacked on- whereas every character in Love Actually was linked with each other, only a few characters here have links to characters in other storylines.

Some of the storylines include a distasteful 'comedy' plotline about two couples competing to see who can give birth first on New Year's Eve so they can win a large sum of money; Jon Bon Jovi as a rockstar trying to make amends with his chef ex-girlfriend (played appallingly badly by Katherine Hiegl); a dowdy woman (Michelle Pfeiffer) who quits her job and then sets about fulfilling New Year's resolutions which delivery driver Paul (Zac Efron) helps her to complete in one night; and two neighbours, one a backing singer (Lea Michele) and one a grumpy hipster (Aston Kutcher) who inevitably fall in love whilst being stuck in an elevator. As far as stars and plotlines go, this is only the tip of the iceberg- however the downfall of this approach is that you have an abundance of lazy underwritten plotlines and a paucity of screentime for the actors. For example, you have Al Pacino who just spends the film in a hospital bed dying; no characterisation of story. Other than the couples at the hospital, which I found very irritating, I felt literally nothing for any of the characters (and got the clear impression the screenwriter felt nothing for them either). No anger, no sadness, no sympathy...they were just cardboard cut-outs. I rolled my eyes at the rip-off Love Actually monologues about the special magic of love and new year, although it was also embarrassing in Love Actually too.

Thankfully I saw the film on streaming services so I didn't have to pay- your enjoyment of the film will entirely depend on how much you like star-spotting and the guesswork of who is connected to who and how are they connected.

It reminds me of the Love Actually plotline in which aging rocker Billy Mack is releasing a novelty cover of Love Is All Around, changed to Christmas is All Around, in a sell-out bid for the Christmas no. 1. He knows full well the song is a dreadful lazy rip-off of the original, solely to cash in on the season.

Beyond Clueless appears to be about American teen movies after Clueless up to 2006, but after ten minutes of watching, it becomes apparent that it's actually musings about the nature of the teenagers: they're conformist, struggling with sexuality...and that's about it. This naval gazing is merely illustrated with nearly 200 films (although as you would expect, most of these are simply shots of teenagers walking past the lockers, having sex, etc.).

As this era of teen films is completely looked over in film history (apart from a cursory nod to Mean Girls), it would have been interesting to hear about the making of the films, their influence, etc. Picking a few films to study in closer depth would have made more sense, rather than giving the synopsis of a handful of films (I know the genre is predictable but what's the point in giving spoilers if you have nothing interesting to say about them). It was nice that some obscurer films were mentioned and it wasn't just teen rom-cons (note- there's plenty of nudity, it is very much teens rather than tweens) but there's no actual study of these films as films, rather as a backdrop for the filmmaker Charlie Lyne's naval gazing.

Fairuza Balk's narration is supposed to sound artsy and intellectual but sounds more like she is bored out of her brains.

You'd be better off going to the Wiki page for this film, which lists all the films shown in Beyond Clueless, and picking out a couple to watch.

This filmmaker needs to go back to school to learn how to make a decent cinematic essay!

I've never seen the film or read the book so coming in with completely fresh eyes.

Firstly, the positives. There's no point in a remake unless you have a new angle, and reimagining the central character as a woman works great (and they kept the masculine name of the lead as a nice nod). Zoe Kravitz is very cool and laidback and despite the show being five hours of someone moping and dithering over past and present loves, she almost makes it worth watching. I like how there were a couple of gentle nods towards racism, such as a guy who sees Cherise (Rob's record store colleague)'s advert as a singer for the band, then when he realises Cherise is a large black woman, he walks out. Nicely done, without getting on a soapbox. There is no 'agenda' in this programme, as some 'anti-PC' (i.e, bigots), will presume because the lead is a woman of colour, but nothing wrong with subtly pointing out a few truths.

The two main problems of the show are firstly that it's quite clearly padded out. What might have made an enjoyable five-part TV show, or even just a film, is dragged out to 10 episodes- the premise itself doesn't lend itself to that long a running time (it is primarily someone moping about past loves and failing to commit to new ones). The secondary characters aren't fleshed out, though there was some potential with Cherise- however much you might enjoy the show, there isn't enough material for a second series and I feel the first series is wrapped up enough that people won't feel short-changed.

The second problem is that music should be the heart and soul of the series. Rob runs a record store and a brilliantly curated soundtrack (there's plenty of songs about love after all!) might have justified the running time. The music, as well as the actress, should tell the story. Whereas this feels more like the writer Googled a couple of obvious music choices and occasionally chucked in music conversations. Particularly with a female lead, there was a great chance to make a show which isn't just a romance. Because the soundtrack and the emotional content of the show don't marry up, it falls short of its potential.

I think Rob is a relatable character although am not too sure about the obvious attempts to emulate Fleabag (breaking the fourth wall, character who can occasionally be cruel- an anti-heroine). It feels unnecessary.

So 5 stars for a good lead actress but so much wasted potential in a show that certainly provided enough running time to fulfil it.

I find it interesting in that we see the wider picture of the fashion industry- it's not just about the clothes, it's about selling yourself. Inevitably this mix of marketing challenge/fashion challenge will be offputting to some but I feel it's a neat twist. You can buy the winning piece of every challenge on Amazon, although the pieces didn't make me want to rush to buy them.

As for the judging, I don't mind Naomi Campbell- she's straight-talking and I think she has enough experience to judge harshly if needed. After all, this is what people do when they see a fashion catwalk. I find Heidi much worse in that she acts all cutesy towards the contestants and then rubbishes them to the other judges.

Saying that, I haven't always agreed with the judge's decisions. Esther's clothes feel dated to me, like they might have been fashionable in the early nineties, whereas Megan's could be bought at H and M or SimplyBe, and mainly consist of baggy tops in black and white patterns that I think is supposed to be their idea of plus size. Annoyingly plus-size assumes that the woman's weight is evenly distributed, rather than allowing for women who may have a flat chest but larger hips (and vice versa). A lot of women tend to put weight on in one specific area.

The parts I don't like are the cutesy Heidi/Tim filler sketches and the emphasis on the contestant being able to talk their way out of a firing when the judges have clearly made their mind up. The only way this would work is if you had the option that no one leaves that week (bit perhaps have multiple firings).

Just a few tweaks needed but please keep!

Forget ingenious twists- this is more about the comedy. An eccentric crime writer (Christopher Plummer) appears to have killed himself but is there something untoward? Anyone of his equally eccentric self-centred family could have done it.

The details to watch out for, the important lines to remember for later are well signalled so it's more the comedy and anticipation for the pay off.

Daniel Craig as detective Benoit Blanc (basically Poirot's Southern cousin) is having a lot of fun in the role- nice to see the comedy that has been missing from his Bond films since Casino Royale. Maybe it'll open up some lighter comedy after he finishes his stint as Bond.

This is the second remake of A Star is Born (which was itself a remake of What Price Hollywood?)- a tale of a falling actor who falls for a young actress who he pushes to success as his own career irretrievably dies. I haven't seen the Lady Gaga version yet but it can't be worse than this soapy shlock, which is ironically more dated than the 1937 film (which I like by the way) and 1954 one.

The decision to move the story from Hollywood to the world of rock music was the right choice for the time period and certainly gives lots of scope for John Normal Howard (the James Mason role, played by Kris Kristofferson) to indulge his addictions. However it means that it loses the social commentary- the 1954 film was a critique of the Hollywood dream factory whereas in the 1976 one, Barbara Streisand (as Esther Hoffman) is already Barbara Streisand and refuses to change her name and awful style, thus removing a massive internal conflict for the character.

Scenes which were beautifully dramatic in the 1954 film become cringy in the 1976 one. In the 1954 film Norman watching Esther sing The Man That Got Away after the club has closed for the night, you see him fall in love over the course of the song and Esther's unawareness of how good she really is. In the 1976 one, Esther is performing in a lounge act called the Oreos (a woeful racist joke- she is the white one and the other two performers are black) singing a funky number 'Queen Bee'. It's just cheesy, as are all of their interactions apart from when John Norman watches Esther vocalise an acoustic version of the song which later becomes Evergreen.

Streisand can sing for sure but her acting is strained. This is basically a rehash of her superior performance in Funny Girl, right down to the quick-talking Jewish humour that grates even more than John Norman's dull rock numbers. Unlike Streisand, Kristofferson can't sing- or if he can, it's not in evidence here. The film never convinces us that John Norman was ever a big famous rock star, apart from just having him sing at a packed stadium. Implausibly, John Norman's rock audience cheer and whoop for Esther's easy listening belters.

Esther's hair is a character of its own, a sort of springy brillo-pad/afro thing, and her wardrobe is the stuff of horrors (unbelievably in the credits it says that the clothes are from Streisand's own wardrobe!). People talk about the eighties as being the decade that fashion forgot- the seventies is the decade that fashion tried to scrub out of its memory.

Most of the songs are forgettable, including all of Kristofferson's. Streisand sells some on her star power- Queen Bee and The Woman in The Moon- and Evergreen is a pleasant tune. Admittedly the 1954 film isn't full of toe-tappers but they hold up better than these songs. Evergreen is no match for the darkly beautiful torch song 'The Man That Got Away'.

There are essentially no other characters within this film so your enjoyment will depend on how much you want to see sentimentality, cheesy dialogue (brought bang up to date by a proliferation of swear words- the only 'f' word in the 1954 one was 'fame') and Streisand and Kristofferson. Way too long to be enjoyed as a camp classic.

It would be apt to quote from the film itself- one of the characters Sir Gerald Moore (Robert Stephens, great comic value even if he's barely in it) says: 'In my house, when a turd appears, we throw it out. We dispose of it. We flush it away. We don't put it on the table and call it caviar'

This film is a stinker. It starts off seeming like it will be an enjoyable comedy of manners amongst the narcissistic rich (the yuppie lifestyle) but instead is a crushing bore with a plot that has as much depth as a CSI episode.

Tom Hanks is miscast as Sherman McCoy- he looks like his character in Big, a boy pretending to be a grown-up. It was initially interesting to see him act against type but because the filmmakers wanted him to use the Tom Hanks charm in order to smooth the sharp edges of Tom Wolfe's novel, it never pays off. Sherman is unlikeable and weak-willed but in no way the 'master of the universe' that he dubs himself, more like a weedy kid.

Melanie Griffiths does a good job of playing his mistress, dumb blonde Maria, but the character is entirely unlikeable (this is a pretty bad film as far as female parts go- there's nothing for either her or Kim Cattrell as Sherman's wife to work with), a whiny Southern gal.

The plot is that Sherman and Maria take a wrong turn and end up in the Bronx, where Maria accidentally runs down a young black teenager. Uproar in the community ensues (very quiet uproar as the black characters are kept firmly in the background) and opportunistic journalist Peter Fallow (Bruce Willis, again doing nothing remarkable with his role) sees a chance for a good story.

There's lots of scenes where people are just standing around having not very interesting conversations- a sure fire way to kill a film with a running time of two hours. Dialogue-heavy films can be great- see 12 Angry Men- but it's just dull. Morgan Freeman as Judge Leonard White has a 'rousing' speech that attempts to be a poor imitation of Alfieri/John Proctor/Portia.

The novel would be much better serviced by a TV adaptation so we actually get to know the large cast of characters and they can actually explore the theme rather than just telling us.

If you feel guilty watching it because you're having a bad time, take solace in that the cast and crew all hated it as well.

This is very much a 21st century woke Dynasty. The original had more WASPS than a summer picnic but here we have different races. The Colby family are black and Krystal and her nephew Sammy Jo is Venezualan.

In general, the whole show is twenty-first century attitudes. Fallon (Elizabeth Gillies) is a shrewd businesswoman rather than the little girl lost of the original Dynasty. Krystal loves and is (for the most part) loyal to her husband but she is not the pure and angelic Krystle of the original series. Stephen is also out and proud- his father is concerned with Stephen's charitable do-gooding rather than his sexuality.

I have no issue with the changes for the most part. Simply transposing the original would not have worked- social attitudes have changed too much. In the original, Stephen being gay was treated as incredibly shocking whereas no one would bat an eye now. I also really enjoy the change of Sammy Jo from female to male- no longer a trampy wife but fun-loving casual boyfriend.

The only issue I have is with the Colby family. TV has a bit of an issue with writing in black characters but making them underwritten and boring. Even when Jeff and Monica are trying to be sneaky, they're still dull as ditchwater hangers-on to the Carringtons. This isn't portraying ethnic balance; this is tokenism and the actors deserve better.

Grant Show might be suitably silver-foxish (much more so than original Blake!) but his performance is so wooden that he could be replaced by a tree and the tree would outact him. I don't like how villainous and shady he is either- it feels like a lazy way to make the female characters stand out.

Gillies is the most spirited cast member, bringing Alexis's feistiness and manipulation to the role of Fallon. I have not yet watched up to the point where Alexis comes in but she might feel redundant.

The role of Claudia is completely wasted, with Claudia being a two-dimensional crazy woman, whereas in the original she was interesting and sympathetic.

The original series was very influential- in some respects we already have a modern version of Dynasty in the form of the excellent Empire.

All in all, it's a watchable, if forgettable version of a camp classic.

Part art-world satire, part absurdist comedy and part social-commentary, watching The Square is like wandering around an art gallery. Anyone who's been to an art gallery will recognise the stillness and slow pace (which accounts for the two-and-a-half hour running time) but despite this, there are lots of comic moments, including an ill-advised advertising campaign and the live performance art seen on the film's poster.

The film is really hinged on Stockholm's X-Royal Gallery's lead curator, Christian Nielsen (Klaes Bang), who fobs off American reporter Anne (Elizabeth Moss) when she probes into the nonsensical art-speak on his website. It's a great moment of culture clash as Anne concedes to his European philosophising which is professional BS-ing.

Christian's social apathy is reflected by the public, as crowds of people wander past street beggars, glued to their smartphones. Initially the social commentary is more under the radar with the focus on comedy but near the end of the film, it's soapbox territory. Your mileage on that may vary- is writer/director Ruben Ostlund mouthing off about the problem of homelessness or is it a study of middle class guilt? I would say it's the latter- Christian is only struck by small moments of generosity when he's doing well for himself. Besides, unless you are an artist who is actively engaged in social work, you can hardly make a film criticising art's exploitation of social deprivation unless you are a massive hypocrite.

The film's title refers to the X-Royal gallery's latest art installation- a lit-up outline of a square in the gallery's courtyard, with a plaque that says within the space of this square, everyone has equal rights. Is it genuinely thought-provoking or is it merely paying lip-service? Though the film is satirical, it does make you think about the point of art.

Though Dominic West gets equal billing with Elisabeth Moss, his is only really a cameo, as the artist of one of the gallery's exhibitions 'Mirrors and Piles of Gravel'. Sporting a pair of horrid yellow sunglasses that bring to mind 90's Britpop, he is the typical pretentious artist.

Without wishing to give more away, the comedy ranges from satirical to black comedy to absurdist comedy. One particular bit of gross-out comedy means that you might wish to leave the children/grandparents at home, unless you enjoy the awkwardness.

One final note- despite the majority of the film being in Swedish, there are a couple of scenes in English, so that should open it out to audiences who hate reading subtitles.

Adulthood is where dreams go to die, bankruptcy is where companies go to die. It's unfortunate that whilst this series fanatically praises Nasty Gal founder Sophia Amuroso (here, she is called Sophia Marlowe)as a business success, in life Amuroso has stepped down as CEO and the company is bankrupt.

Sass alone does not make success but fictional Sophia seems to get by simply on being a sassy millenial. She starts the series as a twenty-three year old shoplifting drifter, who is stuck in teenager mood (where she basically remains throughout the whole series)and ends up a girlboss (the kind of patronising term you might use on marketing a Barbie doll).

Though the first three or four episodes are unbearably smug, Britt Robertson does a good job as little-girl-lost Sophia, seller of vintage fashion. Ellie Reed is fine enough as Sophia's hanger-on/best buddy Annie.

It's not so much the acting that's the problem as the whole concept being flawed. It's free publicity for the Nasty Gal business and no amount of dramatic license will disguise the fact that this is a six and a half hour commercial.

The reality is sanitised in the show. For starters, there is whitewashing (Sophia Amuroso is of Greek, Italian and Portuguese descent). Secondly, in this version Sophia is still in contact with her dad, with a relationship no more strained than any young daughter. When we know that he can bail her out financially, her decision to shoplift is bratty rebellion rather than financial problems.

The material was pretty thin anyway so unsurprisingly it did not get a second season.

Game On was devised by Bernadette Davis and Andrew Davies. Davies is mostly famous for his costume dramas, such as Pride and Prejudice) and as time has gone on, Game On is very much a historical sitcom as it rides the wave of the nineties.

The set-up is three friends living in a London flat. Landlord Matthew (Ben Chaplin, then Neil Stuke) is a neurotic agoraphobic who nevertheless thinks he's a hard man; his best friend sex-starved Martin (Matthew Cottle) is basically his lackey; and nympho Mandy (Samantha Janus), who will sleep with anyone except Martin and Matthew and despite her intelligence flits from temp job to temp job.

The first series is a little darker and a bit more subversive as Matthew's rampant sexism, perversions and occasional casual racism are on display. Chaplin is a better actor than Stuke and his charm and good looks make it more interesting, as on the surface you'd expect Matthew to be doing pretty well in life. A couple of the highlights of the series involve Matthew's cross-dressing and his brief venture playing in a band who lives in the flat upstairs.

The addition of Neil Stuke softened the darkness of the comedy. Stuke is more likable and relatable in the role- a more traditional sitcom choice- but had Chaplin had more time in the role, he would have made it iconic. He has that coolness that Stuke couldn't bring.

I really liked Samantha Janus in the role of Mandy; not simply eye candy for the boys, she is very funny as she handles her string of jobs and men.

Martin is the weakest character. It's not particularly the fault of actor Matthew Cottle but the writing for the character is very one-note. The introduction of his girlfriend Claire (Tracy Keating) makes him even more annoying.

By Series 3, the show ended up in a very different place from the first series with some emotional backstories for some of the characters (in addition to the death of Matthew's parents, which is mentioned throughout the show). This helped diffuse the sameyness that had crept in.

Similar to Men Behaving Badly in the way that it showed 90's laddishness and sexual permissiveness, Game On had some very funny moments and some subversively dark moments but was not consistently funny and ultimately did not lead up to its promise.

Although it purports to be a homage to thirties adventure serials, Sky Captain and The World of Tomorrow is strangely cold. The film was entirely computer generated and as a result, it feels robotic. The actors do not interact convincingly with the environment; the marrying of CGI with reality is what makes CGI effective.

Unfortunately the visuals aren't even particularly appealing. The soft focus effect is overdone and makes the actors look very fuzzy. Jude Law is obscured in shadow so much that we hardly ever see his face. In concept it's a nice idea but it was just taken to too much of an extreme. Some of the robots Sky Captain (Jude Law) battles are cool, such as the robots with wavy arms, but others are risible (the planes that flap their wings like birds). The film is only ten years old but already it feels dated. The short that the film is based on is actually visually accomplished; it was a bad idea not to release the film in black and white. Instead the film was shot in black and white and then like in colourised films of the past, layers of colour were added.

There is a faint story: reporter Polly Perkins (Gwyneth Paltrow) teams up with old flame Sky Captain (Jude Law) to solve the mystery of famous scientists that are disappearing. Can they defeat evil German Dr Totenkopf (Laurence Olivier in hologram form)? And can Polly cope with Sky Captain's past love affair with Captain Franky Cook (Angelina Jolie, looking very odd and masculine)? All the CGI in the world cannot compensate for a weak story, which this unfortunately is. It's thin but the film spreads it even thinner. Essentially it's just Law and Paltrow running around in front of a blue screen, feigning fear at various robots that they can't see. There is the odd moment of humour- Omid Djalili is very funny in a cameo role as a friend of Sky Captain's and Angelina Jolie's 'British' accent that sounds Australian is certainly something to see. To be fair to Jolie, she adds some campness; however the film takes itself too seriously to allow for campness.

I wanted to like the film because I love many similar films to this: Rocketeer, Dark City, Captain America. Dark City is particularly similar- a sci-fi film that has a strong thirties feel but is not literally set in the thirties (there's enough anachronisms in Sky Captain to make it a very alternative thirties). Whilst that film is not perfect, it has much more flair and imagination than Sky Captain does, without needing a blue screen for every shot.

If entirely computer-generated films really are the world of tomorrow, it's a sad day.