Reviews

Too hard. And it shows. His attempts at being creative with the camera and trying to bring some stylistic flair to the kills and just in his shooting methods in better hands like Sam Raimi may have worked but here they just bring far too much attention to the themselves and they are poorly staged.

For example, the various point of view shots through the shopping trolley, the phone, the bottom of the bin, through various bottles etc are cheap and simply don't work.

This is a director who is trying to make a career for himself yet he simply doesn't have the talent unlike some of the other people involved in this film.

Clearly all the money was spent on the fake Heads and gore because there was nothing left in the budget for the music. It sounds like stock production music and really brings the film down as does the sluggish pacing. It's just poorly directed all round.

None of the characters are particularly interesting or likable and they're all similar. None have personalities aside from the lead. Its just not very well executed.(excuse the bad pun).

And while it is set in a supermarket some scenes are outside and it's supposed to be at night but the whole thing is overlit and lacks atmosphere.

It is still fun in a few parts and it is from the 80s though it really it is not a classic, that it trys so hard to be.

That's really no memorable scenes or pieces of dialogue or anything amusing or really anything of great quality. The way the Killer drags his victims to their death with such ease is also poorly staged. The fight scenes from the beginning are laughable. Just awful.

It wants to be Dawn of the Dead crossed with Halloween and perhaps that was their idea, like an Argento film. Its more like a student film. So was Evil Dead but it had style and flair and originality and a talented guy at the helm. Not our man Scotty.

There's a good reason that horror fans and those of us who were around in the 80s have never heard of it. Sure some did but with the well known people attached it should have been very well known but its not because it's bad. Its really that simple. The ending too was ridiculous.

Its worth a watch, barely, but there are far better films around, even much trashier ones that are more enjoyable than this attempt at a career launching exercise for its desperate director.

This episode broke my heart. That poor girl. She trusted those people. The absolute betrayal of it. The horror of what they did. Just the complete nastiness and disregard for human life. Both of them deserve to be strung up.

It was so cold. So calculating. What makes anyone thinks that they can act in such a way and get away with it. Not only are they scum but they are stupid people. May they suffer until their dying day.

I am enjoying the series. I hope they make more episodes. It's as good as most crime shows out there so it deserves a better rating. Girls can be so nasty, especially to each other.

This was a very well produced episode. What a nasty piece of work. Has all the attributes of a gigantic spoilt brat who still thinks the universe revolves around her. Greedy jealous insecure controlling pathetic.

A flawed man perhaps but no one deserves that. She couldn't handle her sister getting the attention that she once had. She just wanted everything for herself.

This series is well-made and as good as any other crime series around so I don't believe the scores are a good representation of the quality of this program.

Great to see that Justice was finally served. Recommend this series to anyone and hope they make more episodes.

A decent idea and some competent direction can't save this from it's nasty dose of bad acting. Anita Skinner simply isn't good enough to carry the whole film. It's no coincidence that she has no other film credits after this. The man who plays the doctor isn't much better. Whenever they are on screen it feels like amateur theatre.

However the worst by far is the actress playing Karla who is supposed to be a major actress, in a piece of irony. She's really awful.

There are several eerie moments and the script is decent enough for low budget 80s fare. There are some well edited sequences which create the right atmosphere but all up the pieces do not create a successful whole. The acting unfortunately just lets the whole film down. No one is good in this.

Worth a watch if you are fan of the 80s and it's certainly better than a lot of the crap that was made at the time. As a film its a 6 but that acting brings it down. A one time watch only.

People giving it 10 obviously have no ability to critique and should refrain from posting reviews. Then again people don't know what they don't know. The Dunning-Kruger effect.

A better budget might have garnered better actors, but try as it might, the flaws are ultimately too domineering.

This is an excellent doco about a very powerful singer with quite the journey. Rather than repeat what others have said I'll focus on a couple of differences.

It was poignant that the story was told by those who were part of it, especially those who did not survive to witness the release of this documentary. There were however, quite a few grabs that were low level in volume. One late in the piece by Jimmy Barnes comes to mind. I don't know if the version I saw on free to air television was any different than the one in cinemas and dvd but it seems highly unlikely. The audio levels were not consistent throughout which is unheard of really in a production, especially one this important. It should not have happened.

I would have liked to known something about his siblings. We saw a brief shot of a sister in the sixties footage with his family but no mention afterwards. Surely worthy of one. And what of his parents? Did they survive long enough to witness his huge eighties success? The focus is mostly on the music but a mention or two of family is important in John's story and a human interest one for the audience. When did they pass? What impact did it have on his career and life?

I was a teenager in the eighties so was a big fan of Whispering Jack and the following two albums. To my memory, W. J. was the first Australian produced CD by an Australian artist. A mention would have been good. It's quite significant. A piece of music history.

It was surprising to me that so many of the songs on W. J. and Age of Reason were written by others. One from each album was written by Ross Wilson. His own version of A Touch of Paradise can be found on an earlier Mondo Rock album, Nuovo Mondo. It's very good too. I thought a mention or even interview of Ross would have been worthy. A legend in his own right. There was obviously some sort of relationship there for John to have two of Ross' songs over two albums.

It's interesting because so many of the songs for the follow-up album, Chain Reaction in 1990 were written by John and associates. Some of his best including In Days to Come, See the Banners Fall and most importantly, I Can Do Anything. This last track features some very poignant lyrics that speak to the man. 'So, what do you see. Just an ordinary man. What sets us apart, is this fire in my heart. That says I can do anything.'

Much was made of Burn for You, another great track, but I think a mention of this song was also very important. It says everything really about John Farnham as a person and his entire career. Again, an oversight.

For the casual listener, these things would not have been noticeable. For me, I loved the whole documentary. I just wanted a bit more in certain places. Such as his regular appearances on Hey Hey it's Saturday, which I also remember. It spoke to the humour of the man and his relaxed, casual nature. Again, that 'ordinary' quality juxtaposed with his huge talent. A brief mention again, would have added more depth.

It was great to see the inclusions of Amazing Grace, his song with Jimmy Barnes, his work with Daryl Braithwaite (whose own solo album is brilliant), his later live performance of that song, Sadie and many other clips unseen to most, like his mid-seventies gigs.

Most importantly, it worked on an emotional level. To think of those three individuals, Olivia, Glenn and John, whose careers lasted over 50 years to be all struck down in less than 12 months, is deeply sad. John survived of course, and we can only hope that he recovers enough to have a quality of life again and that he's around for much longer to come, whether he sings again or not.

What a talent. Huge respect. Thank you for some wonderful memories in the eighties in particular and excellent, timeless music. Australia's greatest talent.

For those not familiar with Candid Camera this may seem to be refreshing. But it's really been done before and better, albeit a long time ago now.

It's very long for what is really just a one note idea. And really not that funny. Granted it has its moments and you can warm to some of the characters but knowing that all of them are actors removes any plausibility that we're seeing the right people. It's a façade basically, with only one player being unaware.

With Candid Camera and other shows like it, there were many situations within a single, one hour episode. Here we are asked to go on a multi episode journey for one single idea.

It's not bad, it's just not enthralling or funny enough to commit to. I made it through two episodes and it's harmless enough and occasionally amusing but certainly nothing that hasn't been done before and much better.

We have a typical murder mystery underway but leads run cold and so does the story.

Instead of taking the story up and into new directions or at least with some progression, it becomes bogged down in it's own meandering pacing. It's as though the film dies halfway through.

What's really irksome is that modern American moralizing has now reached Europe. What the entertainment consistently fails to address is that on average, 70% of homicide victims are male.

One character says, 'There is something wrong between men and women.' No, there is something wrong with lazy, uneducated scriptwriters who tell stories based on impressions and clichés rather than doing any simple research into crime statistics.

It continues on throughout the second half of the film, which is the same area where the pacing becomes overly sluggish. The 'messaging' overrides the story and the journey of the characters. Very disappointing.

Europe has largely avoided American style clichés, but this is not a good sign. Please be more original. Black Box was an excellent recent French film, as an example. Europeans have long done their own thing. May it continue. Please.

This is not your typical music documentary. Neither should it be. Talk Talk are not your typical band. Especially given that this film covers the band's last two albums more so than the early ones.

Initially you wonder how on earth there's going to be proper content without permission to use the music, or without many of the key players. It's evident that some of the filming at least, took place before Mark Hollis' death as he's referred to in the present tense. Even though the documentary is listed as being made in 2020. If it had been made afterwards, some of those key people may have had a different approach. It's a shame. (Excuse the pun). We'll never know.

However, there is some archival material of Mark Hollis talking and the band which makes up for that. And the new interviews all tell similar stories so a picture of the recording process and how Hollis operated is presented. I enjoyed listening to the guys. They know their stuff. It was fascinating.

I was never a huge fan of those later albums, though I Believe in You is my favourite Talk Talk song. They sounded more like jams to my young ears, so to learn what actually went on during recording was really fascinating. I still don't think it's the masterpiece some claim but I do see it as an incredibly creative work, which did influence other acts down the years.

What's really interesting of course, is the very artistic approach to the documentary itself. It's lovingly made with the spirit of the album (excuse the pun), Spirt of Eden, even though some of that album and its follow-up are quite dense and loud.

Irrespective, this is a work of art in its own right. Quite enjoyable just as a film, not merely as a music documentary.

I still learnt a lot. Enough to satisfy any Talk Talk fan or those who are interested in the creative process and appreciate quality filmmaking.

Title says it all really.

It's cleverly directed once again by the very talented Mr. Richardson.

Some of the production is very slick, with numerous tracking shots and helicopter shots, as well as some stunts with the chopper going up the river and close to the water.

Production values are certainly a lot higher here than just a few years before in the late eighties.

The premise is a good one. The women do a great job of acting. Their relationship is quite fun to watch.

The escape too is clever and interesting.

The problems arise really when the prisoners meet the farmers. Not a lot happens from there and when it does, it's not funny. A shame because the set up was good. Not enough time has been spent on the script to develop the relationships and especially the humour from this point on. A waste.

The ending is quite poignant but its a bit too late by that point.

Certainly not as good as it could have been but its far from terrible and not one of the worst as the other reviewer said. (I personally thought the Turkey episode to be far worse).

Overall, not bad and certainly worth watching. It is Comic Strip after all.

The notion of being a sex slave is appealing to some. Be careful what you wish for. The slaves in this episode quickly find out that the high demands far exceed their capabilities.

Martin Amisless is a fun send up of Martin Amis the author by Keith Allen. Writing the novel in the sex dungeon was funny. Keith was great as he was in the previous ep.

Peter Richardson turns in a very good James Bond impersonation. There could have been a sequel, he was that good.

The concept is quite clever and there was probably room for more humour but what's there is certainly a lot more entertaining than other episodes.

Ironically there's quite a few messages about men needing to step up to improve their outlook on women, and they parody James Bond quite a lot on this point, yet are quite happy to imitate a Japanese woman in a pretty derogatory fashion (by Jennifer Saunders) which, even at the time, doesn't pass the litmus test.

Great sets, US stock footage and a thrilling finale with some of M's sexy gadgets really coming through to help save the day make this a pretty enjoyable experience though clearly not one of the better episodes.

How to write a long review on something that was clearly from the start, just a bad, unfunny episode. With a very dumb concept.

Comic Strip was always outrageous and that's why we love it so I suppose it's bound to happen that there would be some misses. And some episodes do miss the mark.

This one though is a terrible misfire. It's a real chore to sit through. Looks like it had a decent budget too with that set.

Five is a generous score. Only because of some of the actors do a decent job, despite the unfunny dialouge.

Ruby Wax was quite the celebrity in the UK at that time. She's okay here. I'm merely filling out the word count.

I didnt laugh once. I couldn't wait for it to be over.

I heard how bad this was so had to see for myself.

I was expecting to be laughing at how atrocious it was but it's not even bad enough to laugh at, like some terrible shows and movies. This was just so bad it was hard to believe what I was watching. My mouth was open in astonishment at how revolting it was.

How the hell did this get made? It's abysmal on every level. It's not even a train wreck. A train is on it's way performing its duty before it crashes. This train never left the construction yard. Shame the idea did.

The jokes aren't funny. It's not cool. It's not hip. It's the opposite. It's majorly offensive. Offensive for two reasons.

One for how terrible it is and it is really bottom of the barrel terrible, and two for it's obvious sexism and racism. What an absolute insult, really, to anyone with half a shred of respectability. I'm just staggered that this even exists.

And to have it based on a CHILDREN'S decades long loved series is just mind blowing. It's wrong.

Shame on the execs who passed this giant steaming turd. Every single person involved with green lighting and creating this 'show' deserves to never work again.

One of the worst programs ever made. Without exaggeration.

Beautifully filmed and dressed streets but you would expect that from the type of budget that delivers some big names, albeit well past their heyday.

As a series, it's the trend that keeps on giving. And taking.

Take some disparate parts of history, focus on only one set of victims over others and emerge with more misrepresentations of the past that further demonizes certain types and institutions.

Unfortunately many people get their views on history from this type of exaggerated cherry picked revisionism.

It's just another chapter in Hollywood's war on certain people and groups. They always go after the same types.

As entertainment it's nothing but torture porn. As a story it's merely Yellowstone with different characters but more, shall we say, identity politicism. Sheridan is the new 'W' King.

The famous actors do their job but their prime is well behind them. Better to revisit their earlier material like Prime Suspect and Witness than persevere through this misery.

How many more times can Sheridan tell the same story? It's another remake. Aside from that, he really does need to take a good long look at himself. The divisions he and his colleagues are creating is incredibly damaging.

Skip this series. Nothing new here.

I for one have not been a fan of the couple's continuous circus over the past few years.

Here's a simple equation to consider.

Is it the entire royal family? Is it all Meghan's family?

Or is it one person? The other being too close to be subjective.

I did watch this all the way through and I also feel more compassion for Harry now than before. I truly believe he thinks he's doing the right thing. He also has his wife in his ear and no doubt surrounded by a bunch of self serving sycophants who are giving him bad advice, or at least not challenging him or them in any way.

Having said that, he's very clear on his path and one can hardly blame him given the English press' horrendous reputation (like most media to be fair), plus what happened with his poor mother. He's imbued with persecution complex fueled by Meghan, who also has her own persecution paranoias. If he thinks taking them on in multiple lawsuits is going to be good for him and the world, then he's wrong. For people who are already so overwhelming sensitive when it comes to others and public perception then lawsuits and public battles will be detrimental to their own mental wellbeing. Time will tell.

I do feel for the guy but airing your dirty laundry in this way, continuously, is not the way to bring reconciliation with your family. If he thinks this will help, he's sadly deluded. He may have irretrievably damaged all relationships with his family.

They will be unable to respond to this in any way. It's bad enough already. And there's really no recourse for them other than to simply keep quiet. They must be fuming and who could blame them.

So far, it's all been one way.

In all these type of situations, you simply have to look at the numbers. Is it the whole world against you or is it one person, or couple? A couple is as good as one person as they always share the same views. Harry's trying to shield his family as any good man does but the damage was really done way back when he first began dating her. He was too close to see the red flags that others certainly did.

It was a thorough and decent interview. It's just sad to see a good person destroy his life.

'The road to hell is paved with good intentions.'

I really enjoyed the tone of this show. The music, the sets, the color scheme, the direction and the performers. They all work together providing a unique atmosphere. And it's original and not another remake, sequel, spinoff so for that reason it probably deserves a 10.

For me, it's the overall pacing. Nothing wrong with having slow periods to create tension. It's all through the show. The problem is that it just takes so long to get to anything that propels the story forward.

For me 9 episodes for Season 1 could have easily been distilled into 7 if not 6 eps and still not have lost any relevant information. It's the flaw of many shows today. They really just don't have enough story to warrant the episode number.

The Brits do this far better. They're not afraid to have a 6 episode season. Hollywood should not be afraid to try that on too but of course, it's all to fill streaming content today which is why they want as many episodes as possible. So, create more story in that case. Like Andor. One of the few shows today that doesn't feel stretched out. It's 12 episodes and has a huge storyline and yet still had that slow atmosphere that sometimes required to build tension. But it never drags. This does.

I did enjoy it but not enough to come back. There's just too much competition. Frankly getting a little tired of new series than just take up our lives when there are great films from the past to discover in a fraction of the time required.

This was one of the better ones however.

The worst period of Doctor Who in the modern era that is. The Colin Baker era was particularly bad too. The show never recovered. Is it history repeating?

Despite a couple of plot holes and the usual throwing of multiple story lines at the wall in the hope that something sticks (less is more Chubnuts), this was quite enjoyable in parts, especially seeing the classic Doctors and companions for one last time and for Sacha Dhawon's portrayal of the Master. I did like what he brought to the role.

Aside from the occasional decent episode (Like Nikola Tesla and The Haunting of Villa Diodati), we must thank Mr. Chubnuts, for running a great show down into the ground. Was there any need to write almost every episode when the early consensus was that your writing was not good!

The real question is, why didn't the executive heads jump in and do something after that abysmal first season. Even Moffatt and RTD utilised other writers. No, Chubnuts had to imprint his gigantic ego onto every episode. Many plot holes. Over the top story threads. No subtlety. Terrible dialogue and characterisation.

And yes, it's been a trend globally, which doesn't make it right, but the obvious hate towards certain peoples, i.e., wokeness, polarised arguably Doctor Who's core audience. This is why I can't understand why the BBC didn't step in as ratings continued to drop and people turned away in vast numbers.

I personally only came back for the last episode. Two seasons of Whitaker and Chubnuts was enough. (Okay, I did watch two episodes of the 'Floox' and it was flooking awful).

Onto the Doctor. There's been a glaring problem ever since Chris Eccleston took up the role. It was the characterisation. It was clear that RTD was after a particular type of Doctor and I personally believe that Eccleston was right to withdraw. It just didn't suit him. In fact, this type of Doctor, the almost bi-polar-esque hyper Doctor, suits very few. David Tennant nailed it because its just so easy for him to do. It's part of his actual personality. He pulls it off with ease. He's likable! It worked too for Matt Smith because of his innate quirkiness but it was toned down a bit for Capaldi as it just didn't suit him as naturally.

Therein lies the problem. The Doctor has really inhabited the same personality since the reboot in 2005. I think RTD was probably quite a fan of Tom Baker, as was everyone else. But Tom was a strong individual and injected much of his own personality into the role. A lot of those traits were actually Tom's.

Okay sure the Doctor has always been quirky, eccentric, energetic, sometimes brash, annoying, egocentric but the earlier doctors had their own stamp. There was a big difference in personality between Troughton and Davison and Pertwee, for example. They had their own flavour. As do the modern doctors, but certainly not to the same degree. They're too similar. Jodie Whitaker often came across as arrogant and just plain annoying. She was miscast but also I don't feel as though she was allowed to put enough of herself in the role. I might be wrong as to her actual personality but it is accurate that there's not been enough variation in doctors in the reboot era, drawing on the actor's own strengths.

And now it's too late because Chubnuts and the powers that be let him go, like a wayward twelve-year-old on a massive Red Bull binge, destroyed it, thumbing their arrogant noses up at a large part of their fanbase along the way. What absolute morons.

Whether it can be resurrected or whether it's too late is yet to be seen. (Programmers, look at your stats. Insulting your viewers through wokeness means less audience!). It certainly can't get any worse.

Ciao Chubnuts. And we thought the Master was an egomaniac.

You think given the subject matter an aspect of realism would be fairly easy to attain. But no, this has all the delivery of a student film on $1,000 budget. The acting is flat. The direction is pedestrian at best. The first harrowing moment was so poorly staged that it was almost laughable. It does not do this type of subject matter any decent justice with such a display of amateurism.

Written and directed by women there's also a strong scent of sexism permeating every lame piece of dialogue. The man is one-dimensional and singularly mean whereas all the women are saintly. No character depth to any of them either and only very loosely based on the actual story.

Awful on all accounts. Not worth your time.

It's easy to see why critics did not like this film. Only non-white people and women can be victims. All white people are privileged, don't you know. You can't certainly be depicting women as aggressive, abusive and the perpetrators of domestic violence. Not in Hollywoke. Doesn't make for good middle-class dinner party conversation. These types have no idea what poverty actually looks like. They have no clue what working-class life is like and how hard it is to break out of it.

It's not about the lack of money. It's about poor life skills which gets passed down from one generation to the next. This film accurately demonstrates that. Occasionally people do break out of the cycle. They are naturally born with intelligence and provided they're not too damaged, can make it out. Its rare though.

JD Vance was lucky. A few situations show it could have easily not have been the case.

Ron Howard's done an excellent job here. It's a good script, fascinating subject material and of course brilliant performances. Glenn Close was acknowledged for her performance with various nominations. Amy Adams got a couple too but really both deserved much more, as does the film on a whole. It's clear from the reviews here and the ratings as well that the critics are way off the mark. Really what would they know, in their upmarket apartments, drinking shiraz and looking down their noses at a world they do not understand.

The poor critical reviews is more about not fitting into the mould of the stereotypical identity politics model which is so pervasive in Hollywood now rather than any actual reflection of the film itself.