Reviews

If you're a vault dweller like me, you will have played Fallout since it first came out as an RPG back in the 90s. A sprawling and somewhat overwhelming game with a rich world and fantastic characters.

It is the gem in Bethesda's catalogue.

With other games receiving the Hollywood treatment, it was only time before someone took this on. Enter Johnathon Nolan.

If you aren't a fan, I would suggest you search for a short introduction to the world of Fallout, but, it can be hard to follow with such a soup of themes and stories.

This is well worth a watch nonetheless. It has Nolan-esque tropes and plays with time and theme.

It can be a little hard to follow, and the action is taut and straight out of the playbook. Fallout has enough references and thematic callbacks, that it is hard not to like.

The characters are written well, the dialogue is good, the story is true to the lore of Fallout, and the set is particularly rewarding.

Walter Goggins is a fantastic actor and he carries a lot of the charm on his shoulders. As for the rest of the cast, they each perform their pieces with plum.

The music, CGI and sound design are all of a fine standard, and despite Amazon's many fails, this could very well be a hit. Just as long as they don't drag it out and go meme hunting like Rings of Power.

If there is any criticism, it would be that there could have been more of a callback to VATS and the gaming element. This does not detract however, as it is important to know that this is a serial and not a game.

Give it a go and make your own mind up. However, it is hard to not like this show for the characters collective journeys.

Just finished this and am wondering about the one and only review, as well as the 7.6 rating.

It has long been known that production companies can and do cook the reviews and ratings, especially weighted reviews, but is this some kind of experiment?

It is a homage, and it reminds you that it is using black and white, tableux's and cigarette burns (see Fight Club).

But I mean, they're just lobbed in there for good measure and feel a wee bit too forced?

And this brings me to the script and acting. Yes, I get that this is a homage, and uses a comic as the source of inspiration....

But it is a rather blandly performed piece that has some funny moments, but maybe I am not the target audience?

It is nicely shot, has sets, decent CGI, but it is just a wee bit flat and this is why it seems like experimental TV.

Maybe it is highbrow and succulent in it's form. Maybe I'm just too critical and cynical...

But how this has 7.6 is beyond me. And that very first review? Reads more like a love letter than a critical overview.

This show is so bad that I managed to extract my own spleen via my belly button, and binged on it each time a line was delivered.

I think the writer went full zombie whilst writing this.

Netflix go home.

The marketing of this program is far more impressive than the program itself.

Tediously wrapped, it tries way too hard to be so many things, yet delivers a half-baked adaptation of what is essentially a podcast.

This here is the problem I feel.

It isn't as good as it is made out to be, and besides a handful of good scenes, it is far more fat than muscle.

As a proton-pack wielding winner of the Stockbridge Village Primary School Easter dress-up of 1988, I would count myself as being in a 'Real' position to speak for a lot of the Ghostbusters man-childs of the 1980s.

This film is a mop-up of the 2016 "adaptation" of the 1984 classic paranormal comedy which spawned a generation of ghostbusting fanatics of yesteryear. You millennials (of which, I am a halfling) don't know what you missed.

1984 was a great year indeed for film. So many great films, with so much hope came from this Orwellian vestibule. But Ghostbusters was the one that really took us youngsters by the nards. It captured the imagination, it spoke to us in our sleep, and it taught us all how to date.

Fast forward a few decades and there has been countless attempts to recapture that essence, and make a buck or two in the process.

Ghostbusters: Afterlife is another link in that chain and is quite possibly the closest to the original than you future geeks will know. It is a sign of the times and a product of its environment.

Ghostbusters, you see, was always about boys and their toys - sorry females, but there it is. 1984 was a different time and place that was what it was, and all it ever will be. Guys chasing girls out of their league, women as secretary's, and goofy guys getting the hot chick.

2021, we have had a strange general throwback to the said '80s in that studios and audiences have called back to slightly outcast kiddies grouping together to fight the evils of our world, whilst the adults goof off and look, well, stupidly naive about the world they created for said kids.

And this is where Ghostbusters: Afterlife sits.

It is a canon of the original Ghostbusters to re-tread the old tyretracks, but with added nostalgia. It is a pleasant mish-mash of The Goonies, Stranger Things formula, that has enough of a flavour of the original 1984 concoction to tickle the taste buds of the widest possible audience.

If you didn't 'like' the 2016 fail, you were a misogynistic nerd (according to Jenny McCarthy's cousin). So I guess if you don't like this attempt, you are Uncle Scrooge's fat uncle.

However, with all that said and done... It is an enjoyable watch, and has its own merits as a part of the franchise. It is quite pleasing to the eye, and the audio track is quite nice - even if it is a big fat twinkie in the pocket.

The cast is pretty good, and the acting is quite good. It takes a leaf out of nearly every other remake or redo of late, and makes good use of the material before it.

It was never going to compare with the original, but if at first you fail (2016), try harder. It is a product of its generation and who doesn't like seeing kids act like the adults and the adults act like kids?

It is hard not to like this film for that reason alone. But I can't think of where they'll go from here. If they make a "squeakal", fair play, hats off. But I really can't see how they can unless they now incorporate the devices or characters that they employed in the final act. (Without spoling)

But I fear the next step will be a full-blown remake in a few years with half-baked representative actors of the original 1984 film. But this time, they will draw it out as a serial, and fully delve into everything they can to string us along.

Nonetheless... Give this a go. It is miles better than the 2016 re-think, and will tickle your pickle for a couple of hours.

You won't get much here without politics. The African-American lady at both the beginning and end of this series is literally one of the only rational people in this debacle.

This is an good series nonetheless and show a few different angles about a very complex and troubled country (as in Afghanistan).

Top and bottom however is that the war on terror was doomed to fail from the offset and no amount of bravado can excuse the fact that since September 9/11, too many innocent people have died at the hands of megalomaniacs, brown-noses and zealots.

Everyone is reckoning this is the end of it all (as this series postulate), but it is only act II.

Let's hope that Covid-19 is a wake-up call to all the organisations and groups who continually look to poke the bear for their own means.

Give this a watch if you enjoy this kind of stuff - my respect to the innocent and good people who have been caught up in this 50 year mess.

As for the terrorists and bad guys - shame on you!

8/10 - 2 knocked off as I'm sure there could have been more done to give other sides more coverage. But, this is a western production and I guess they did their best within their remit.

Firstly, I'm from Liverpool, UK. Which pretty much means that I'm neither for the U. S, nor China. I'm somewhere in the middle and have as much respect as disdain for these two leading superpowers.

I watched this documentary and if you are reading this, it means that you're either looking to see if this is worth your hard-fought time, or you're someone linked to the project looking for kudos.

Like the above statement, I'm neither going to recommend that you do or you don't, and I'm not about to praise or diminish the work.

What I will say is that, in this time of 'fauxness', I'm not actually sure what was real or fake in this production. It was hard to tell at time and whilst I'm fairly sure (as both a critic and sometime filmmaker myself) that there are portions that are somewhat fictional, whilst there are some portions that are reality.

What this film does, as you can probably tell from the front cover, is draw similarities between these two nations and their respective responses to the pandemic. It isn't a new concept and has been done for years by the likes of Brecht, Ibsen and Mike Leigh (albeit in fictional works).

I'm not equating Wang to the likes, but the concept still stands - it is a game of wag the dog - or in this case, Wang the dog.

Crafting a documentary isn't that hard in the grand scheme of things - you create a timeline from point A to point Z, amass your media, and tell a story. It's such a simple concept, a kid could do it.

The hard part is telling your story... filling in the rest of the alphabet. This is usually done by media and narration. Both are well done by Wang and she does a good job of internalising and externalising her story to suit the needs of the film.

Some of the footage is a bit dicey at times and their origins aren't really cited - some for obvious reasons. But one thing does trouble me. There is footage presented that was shot in a Chinese Doctor's surgery which just looks bizarrely edited. Hardcoded are English dates and times (CCTV dates and times), and these are usually hardcoded by the camera's software.

But if this footage was captured in China by Chinese cameras and Chinese softwares, wouldn't they be in Chinese? I am not sure - but I figured they would be (just as in other segments of footage).

Therefore - I spent the rest of the documentary questioning what was real and what wasn't?

It's a given that the "hospital" footage was a honeytrap for reporters in order to keep the eyes of the press away from the real problems. It just looked like a fake hospital and I'm no expert here, but I was sure that there was footage released by the CCP which had obviously been staged - and this hospital looked very similar.

So, again, it is hard to filter out the agenda here and when that happens the film actually starts to resemble a film and not an expose or even documentary.

Wang gives details of her motives a number of times and I respect that! Yet, there are just certain parts which makes you wonder what the superagenda is here and whilst any good documentarian will say "You are supposed to make up your own mind" (to an extend for such subject matter), I was waiting some big reveal.

This is worth your time if you're someone in the future looking for context on Corona. Yet, make no bones about it that this documentary is not the be all and end all just because HBO picked it up.

You won't really learn much that you can't from Wiki and/or the history books (unless someone rewrites it). But it is an interesting citizen journalism piece from someone who has obvious pulls towards both the U. S and China.

With that in mind, it is interesting to view a tale woven from someone with dual citizenship and obvious leanings towards both cultures and countries. She does a good job of epitomising the title of the film and walking you through her points of view on both sides of the fence.

But as I've said - don't take it as read and don't take it as a given that the whole unfettered truth is presented here. Truth is - I doubt any of us will ever know the 'tru faz' of what happened here.

All we can do is tell our stories and hope the chips fall on the table. One thing is apparent though, it's all about the numbers and different representations of those numbers.

Watch if you will, or don't. But if you're a follower of Rona (as I am), you probably won't learn much outside of the sphere of what you already know.

However - one take you will take is that the U. S and China are two cheeks of the same butt. We (UK) are somewhat the crack and we take all the wipings and whatnot and keep the clangers. We have a hand in both countries and craftily wipe our cracks with variable degrees of success.

With that in mind, go forth and watch. But watch our for the clangers.

If you are on here, chances are that you are looking to see if this is worth your time.

Well, it's okay, but you should probably just go and watch either Inception, Bladerunner and/or Strange Days.

This is a mish-mash film which has a convoluted plot and is trying to hard to be future-noir. It has all t he elements of a good film, but you can't help but feel that it really needed a good script editor and possibly an even better film editor.

If this hadn't had the cast (hey, it's Rona-time), it'd be straight on Sy-Fy.

It has too many elements, too many influences, too much throwbacking and little or no originality.

It is littered with Bladerunner references, but has tried (and failed) to take it up a notch or three. The plot is deliberately confusing and one can't help but think that this is made to impress a certain somebody.

If you have a spare two hours to burn, give it a go... But chances are, you'll not really remember much of it.

One star for Hugh Jackman though - but even he can't save this from drowning in a pool of it's own pretentiousness.

Quite simply put, there are faaaaaaaar better films out there to sink your teeth into that won't make you wish you hadn't.

If you can spot the Bladerunner references, you'll laugh so hard that you'll realise that this is all makeup and no foundation.

And as for the voiceover.... less said about that the better the dove will be.

This almost feels like it was a script given to Christopher Nolan, which he tossed in the bin, only for someone to pick it back out and un-crumple it.

Considering that this film's post production and launch coincided with COVID 19, it's surprising it got released at all. Kudos to Paramount for completing it and selling it to Amazon.

I'm 30 minutes into this film as it has just been released and I've been happy all day knowing it was to be released. However, not only is this a nostalgia fest from the off (which has both good and bad emotional effects on the viewer), but it also heavily relies on a lot of CGI and you can tell that a lot of the scenes were filmed very, very, very socially distanced and simply cut into the edit. This zaps all of the enjoyment out of the room as what comedy relies on is people in the room.

I get the whole Covid socially distancing thing, and agree - but this was filmed before Covid and whilst you can forgive James Early Jones for doing his parts remotely (as most of the cast too to a degree), there are some scenes where the comic timing is off and you can see it is down to differential directing.

Unfortunately, this film adds to a long succession of films which prey upon your nostalgia without really whetting its appetite. From a personal perspective, it's good to see Eddie Murphy and the cast again - but Paramount were right to flog this to Amazon; I'd probably have never paid my hard earned cash to see this and wait for it to hit TV (which is has - it Amazon Prime the 'New' Direct-to-Video?).

Okay, so after the full viewing I'm quite happy with my original rating. It is nowhere near as bad as some of these reviewers are making out. Not by a country mile. But what it is is a pastiche of everything that made the original what it was. Everyone is in there and everyone plays their part - it's deftly cringe at times, and quite amusing in others. It isn't as funny as the original, but what are you gonna do?

However - In Retcon City, the walls are wide and diverse and a lot of this feels like rewriting ones memoirs.

5/10 - Eddie and co all look good for their respective ages - with respect.

-1 - Whoever told Paramount that 'Arnieing' Eddie Murphy and Arsenio Hall was a good idea?

I'm going to keep this short and sweet.

I feel sorry for this woman, I really do. She seems nice enough, but in reality, this isn't really a documentary, it is a film with Joyce playing the lead. She personifies the very real syndrome we have today thanks to social media and filth-obsessed men.

The true paradigm at-play here is that, whatever you do, go into this film with the realisation that Joyce obviously has emotional and/or mental health issues and this possibly stems for a need to be famous. I would say that there is a little narcissism there, but Joyce has been exploited enough and in turn, has exploited enough.

This is more of a character analysis than anything else. Mormons be Mormons and that isn't the story here, the true story is what was the seed that set Joyce off on this path of wanton creation/destruction.

I have the feeling that there is a little more to Joyce's exploits than meet the eye, and I'm sorry, but at the mid-way point, realisation set in that this self-publication will never end.

If Amanda Seyfried rocks up in a film sometime soon, I can only feel that Joyce will feel truly vindicated, and you know what? Good on her in the grand scheme of things, she can do whatever she wants and is a free and beautiful human being.

But the story of Joyce will never truly be Joyce's story.

I hope you are well Joyce and living some kind of normal life - I humbly apologise for my country's treatment of you, but if you grab the tiger by the tail, you gotta expect not to get your arm back love.

Since my college years, I've studied various comedians on either side of the pond and one in particular has polarised me. That would be the enigmatic John Belushi. But after seeing this documentary, it opens up a whole different angle of the work both on and off celluloid, whilst at the same time, filling in the blanks on the much glossed-over beginnings of John Belushi.

He passed before my time and I grew up mostly on American VHS'... so whilst Belushi had a lot of the limelight on US TV, and moderate, but untapped success in the box office, the likes of Chevy Chase, Dan Aykroyd, Robin Williams (my favourite), Steve Martin and that other fella (whose name ex-scapes me here) were prominent exports on the VHS market here in the UK.

But I always knew of Belushi via Blues Brothers and the Steven Spielberg film 1941 and having researched the US comedic circuit in my own failed attempt, I'd always read of Belushi being a massive influence on the styles of many of the comedians mentioned above. I was never really sold though and assumed that this was all afterthought, and I had always thought Jim Belushi was the more 'successful' of the Belushi brothers, but after seeing this, I now realise that I was sooooo wrong.

But this documentary fuses various storytelling devices and presentation styles to tell John's story with overdubs of colleagues, friends and family who knew him best. You see, I've always had this thing in my mind about the journey of a performer from comedian to actor and the troubles such a move would bring. It's happened to nearly every comedian-turned-actor and whilst this is ever-so-slightly touched upon in this film, the two praxis' are distinctly different in many aspects and the very pressure this shift brings (with fan backlash and critics'... criticism) must play havoc in the mind of the performer.

To my mind, this fulcrum is where the meat meets the bone and you can point to and isolate this crossover in many of a performers career. Nowadays, it's more or less expected that if you can perform as a comedian, you can perform as an actor. And this is kind of true as the industry as a whole is riddled with cosmic famous stars and celebrities who think they can try their hand at all disciplines. And this is true for most, as the industry has changed so much since the days of the original SNL crew.

But this documentary epitomises the 'American Dream' and what it actually takes to climb the greasy pole from ground to up. John Belushi didn't have rich parents or famous fathers, uncles or friends to give a heave-ho and 'bend the pole' for him. He worked his socks off at a time when theatre what theatre, music was music, TV was TV and film was film - nowadays there's a fusion and the landing pad is so much more wider thanks to fandom, super-agents and over-inflated egos thanks to social media.

These guys were and always be the trailblazers and this documentary is the real rags-to-riches (and everything in between) of the American entertainment industry. It exemplifies the toll and turmoil of the industry and through fine craft and excellent presentation, WILL make you appreciate the artistic craft of one John Belushi.

One thing I always think of when watching a documentary of this ilk is how much it would offer a blueprint for prospective actors, writers and producers, and one of the ;newfangled sounding boards' of documentaries which precedes a feature film of such a subject. Much like a primer or pilot for TV.

SO... with that... I predict one Tom Hardy (of Inception, Capone etc...) to star in 'American Guest - The Story of John Belushi' in 2023/4, streamed live in your living room from Netflix, HBO or Amazon Prime. I would write it myself, buuut NOOOOooooo, having dipped my toe in the murky world myself, I know such doors are guarded by more established and well-connected moguls who have the umpfh, financial clout and connections to get their script through the door. Besides, I'm 1/3rd Albanian, British and Scouse and I'm busy with my hair.

But then, there's possibly only one guy who could ever write a biopic on the man himself and that would be the great Dan Aykroyd. By jove... what the world could do with now is a little bit of Aykroyd (and Ramis RIP)... But saying all that... go and watch this documentary and see the raw force Belushi was and still is within the industry in all it's glory and I guarantee you that this overly-long and wafflish commentary will make a little more sense (just a little).

Rest in anarchy Mr. Belushi, you'd hate the what the whole industry has become since your days but would have a HEAP of artistic inspiration to lampoon sir!

Having enjoyed the work of Mark Rufalo since his work on Eternal Sunshine, I admit he's the only reason I decided to give this programme a viewing. I am always weary of dramas wherein actors portray twins - but I mean, who else are you going to cast, right?

FIlms such as Legend, Moon, The Prestige and that film with Jeremy Irons all have merit for their practice and application (from both an acting sense and a production perspective) - but you were always aware that through trickery and good direction, that it was Christian Bale times-two, Sam Whatsisface matriculated, or Tom Hardy cracking one out in a mirror.

It's the heroin or crack cocaine of acting to play two roles on the same frame and takes not only courage, but sense of character, timing, emotional action/re-action and above all, it takes skill.

From a production perspective, the production is nigh-on spot on - the keying is faultless and the lighting is spot on. Action-wise, you can see the distinct differences in the two brothers' personas and physical characteristics, whilst at the same time, see their similarities and shared commonalities.

But two episodes in, it is hard to both watch at times, yet by that same token, it is hard to take your eyes off of it.

As with most HBO output, it is beautifully framed, well scored and well met. The story is good and the frenetic nature of the plot pulls you in. You are left with questions and it is no easy feat to keep ahead of the curve.

The ensemble are geared and the backdrops are great - if you haven't given this a watch, you should. It is a great drama and the only reason I didn't give it a ten is because I couldn't binge it in lockdown. But as a writer myself, this has inspired me with regard to my own output and feel that moving forward - family dramas such as this, are what will vehemently drive the industry.

Will be tuning in to see the next episode and have so many questions.

Great watch - something the UK networks could learn from. Highly recommended if you enjoy Rufalo, mental dramas or general HBO output. Good to see Rosie O'Donnell again and loved her scene.

So I've reviewed almost all major ITV dramas and I've been less than favourable with some of their output. Their formulaic and 2d approach to some real-life dramas is often as appealing as a date with one of the Eggheads.

Usually, their characters are very underwhelming regardless of the genre and it always strikes me that their dramas are either under or over-rehearsed (more likely the former).

However, I have to say, that this is what becomes when a good script with a good director make drama-love and make little drama babies. The acting is spot-on and the production levels are great (along with burgundy Escort).

Maddog Macfadyen plays Ingram with more than enough elasticity and whilst this, may again, down to the script, McSwegan hits it out the park. He actually gives the 2-D Ingram a lot of spikes and dips; I really wasn't sure on him, but his and Sheen's chemistry really somehow elevates this drama to a different level. They played together in Frost/Nixon and I'm fairly certain they've tread the boards once or twice... possibly in the Scottish play. Here's a bit of pop trivia for you - Macfadyan had a bit-part in QT's Grindhouse... someone stuck their thumbs in his head and killed him... bad form, bad form. I also don't know why I have this in my head, but I could've sworn he had a small role in Shaun of the Dead or something... Answers on a postcard please.

Nonetheless, when I first heard of the casting - I genuinely thought that the roles would be reversed; I thought that Sheen would play Ingram whilst McDoughall played the overly-physical Chris Tarrantula. Good on him I guess, but if Mr. Tarrant had went to hug me on the set of Millionaire, I think I'd have stolen the chequebook out of his pocket - so I can't criticise Ingram for essentially being the Gopher in, what appears to be, a rather depressingly instance of Great British invention (social hacking). We mastered the art of 'man in the middle' in Rule Britannia, and the people involved in this are only carrying on that tradition.

Regardless, this programme tries to balance the boardwalk of objectivity - but anyone with two brain cells can see that they (ITV) sideloaded this programme and I wouldn't be surprised at all if we see a return of WWTBAM with Michael Sheen presenting as Chris Tarrant (he does do CT better than CT does himself - it's creepily odd - the man is a Welsh alien no, not A WELSH ALIEN, but a Welsh alien shape-shifting bi-product of the craft).

The ensemble are very good also, and whilst this is almost definitely down to the script and direction, there isn't a dropped line nor missed beat... The actors do their jobs immaculately here and I really hope ITV take something away from this programme.

However, the pacing is sometimes a bit whirlwind and this is quite possibly down to post, but in-camera, Stephen Frears has crafted a piece which could literally sell by the bucket-load.

The camerawork is great and is a relative charm considering ITV's production houses often revert to talkie-walkies and faux handheld with zooms, pans and awkward tilts (there isn't enough tilts on TV - we need more tilts).

It's actually quite in-depth and at three-episodes long, it doesn't feel enough; but in all honesty, it probably could've done with a bit more courtroom as even with my own research, there was quite a lot that this programme glossed over.

And with that, there are one or two scenes which comes across like a contemporary Carry On, namely, the bloody confetti.

It is hard not to draw conclusions after seeing this and you will find yourself digging up a little more on this subject - that is good TV... And I hope ITV get their fingers out and craft a behind-the-scenes for this as I personally would love to have seen what went on behind the camera with regard to direction and production.

But, go, stop reading this absolute sermon of a review and give it a watch - it's well worth the 40 minutes of advertisements whilst you browse eBay for a pair of socks.

One for the post-broadcast researchers:

A level up from ITV in a time where our nation needs it most. Keep it up and please now produce a programme based on Jimmy Saville with Micheal Sheen. I once pitched this to someone in Glasgow in a revolving doors elevator pitch thingio and quickly s**t myself when I realised I was actually in the BBC Scotland and not ITV... The lady laughed and quickly fluttered her eyes when she realised I was serious, which I guess is the main thing.

On the whole, I really hope you go and give it a watch - whoever you are. But don't sit in judgement over the persons involved in this; or at least, try not to. You've got a 50/50 chance of getting it right either way and if you ask the audience, they'll tell you they're downright cheats (no-one likes that word, and I suspect this is all a bloomin' matter of interpretation and semantics).

Ask yourself what you would have done if you were in their situation; they thought they were smarter than the average folk and quite possibly entitled to be on the gameshow. Whatever their motivations were for doing what they did (exploiting technology to get more money and get to the front of the queue), it really does beg the question "If the Ingrams managed to nearly pull this off, how many more have used tech-aided exploits to get ahead?

And to further extend on this, who hasn't ever cheated in their life? No-one has never cheated in their lives regardless of your interpretation of the word.

0 out of 2 people found this review helpful - as of 12 hours after publishing - Chaz/Di... You ain't kidding this one, ha! :)

I want to apologise to Woods' all over the world for this film. I watched it because of my name so that you don't have to.

Thank me by liking please.

I wrote an extensive review on this, and then deleted it in favour of a less serious and sometime sarcastic tone.

But here are my top ten "Hahaha... errrr... no's."

1. Tory PM allowing their daughter to study at the 'drug influencing' city of Liverpool. (Hey Mr. Murdoch, hehehe, look at how we can once again make the scousers go all self-pity again). Sort it out you pube.

2. Tory female Chief of Staff with short blonde hair? Yeah, okay...

3. Tory Home Secretary having a joke at the expense of the Welsh - say it ain't so.

4. Tory PM agreeing to restore Scotland's power before parts of the UK.

5. Lady Macbeth and chessboard move references in a political show.

6. A criminal overlord immigrant called "Freckles".

7. Poundland Michael Fassbender.

8. 24? Did someone mentioned the writer's obsession with 24 and K. Sutherland?

9. Moles in the unions? Left-wingers crossing party lines? What... Really?

10. Oh, and '90s humour making a comeback.

--

On the whole, give this a watch if you have a spare six hours to literally kill and dismember, but yet again, this is - yet again - some serious USTV-wannabe Spooks-like crud with jobs for the boys. Scenes by editing, drama by the numbers and enough sentiment to make Steven Spielberg writhe in his seat.

There are swathes of writers within our country who have written truly original and interesting stories. This just seems like elite-loving, Brit-humping, wannabe pomp that attempts to balance itself with side-handed pokes, awful jokes and wanton pithy regard for the changing dynamics of our country.

The only good element of this is to see Bobby C on our screens - the guy is a legend and even he couldn't give this 'drama' life and seemed like he even got bored by the last episode.

If Sky commission this for a second series, either they're barking mad, corrupt, or both. It really is that bad.

You can't dress a pig up in human clothes, feed it swill, call it 'Frank' and then expect it to not poo on your floor when you present it with bacon on toast for breakfast, it's a pig! (This is reflective of the writer's style of plotting and dialogue - so don't blame me for this euphemism, blame Cobra)

I usually quite like Kevin Costner and have seen most of his films - but before you watch this, be aware, that if you don't like Kevin Costner, the chances are, you won't like this.

It's a stretch of a film and after reading that Mr. Costner decided against Tombstone because it "focused on the posse", I thought "Reaaaaaaally?".

In all honesty, this doesn't add anything more than Tombstone and let's be honest, the reasoning for this film is because Kevin Costner was too big of a star after DWW and probably had enough of playing in ensembles and figured he should be centre stage.

The reasoning behind going into Wyatt Earp's upbringing - with Kevin Costner playing, what looks like a 30 year old (or whatever) man playing a teenager - was supposedly to flesh out the character. Well... the very fact that they didn't get a younger actor in to play out the expository scenes should tell you all that you need to know.

This is a Costner vehicle, but he really falls short in this one and the film just looks like showboating.

Save yourself the time and watch Tombstone instead... Whilst not perfect in it's own right, it is a far better paced a film, and Kurt Russel underplays to perfection.

The Beeb haven't produced anything truly original for a long time.

So why not remake a classic and try to fit it in with the newfangled obsession of period dramas and little villages.

I can't begin to explain to you how torrid some UK TV has gone... more focused on quotas than quality, this program has to be the biggest flop in the known universe.

Considering the budget, the talent and the promotion, you would be forgiven for thinking that this was the next Citizen Kane... But it is far from it.

Even Rafe Spall looks like he doesn't want to be there and, yet again, this is another case of 'Jobs for the boys' at the BBC.

Cut the dead wood, hire some new talent and get with the times Beeb... your commissioning has been shocking for a while now, and I honestly cannot believe they went and created a complete bag of **** from one of the classics.

I feel sorry for our country at the minute... But releasing crap like this will not endear us to the rest of the media world.

Give it a watch, but give it a miss...

And seriously, just watch the trailer and it is basically all you need to see.

The full film is just the trailer conflated.

Seriously. You'll thank me later if you get sucked in.

As a film student, I understand the concept of handheld or gonzo camera work. I understand that it can add a certain frenetic quality to the overall aesthetic and that it can produce a heightened sense of realism to the viewer.

But two things:

1. Viewers have seen it all before and if you overuse this effect, it just looks amateurish and the novel quickly wears off.

2. You can't mix photorealism with constant cuts as it stagnates the action and drama - it can, as many have said, induce headaches and eyestrain. Especially with 4k and longer focal lengths.

There's another point about zooms and their relation to audience attention - upon seeing the cameraman/DOP draw our attentions to Siobhan Finneran's fork picking up an olive. I rated her plate, it didn't get much love from me.

This is a good solid detective story with all the trappings of a thriller/mystery... but again, viewers have seen it all before and while this is an ostensibly British production, this exemplifies why we are being left behind in the TV world. The true element of this drama is obviously serious and tragic - but as someone else has said, at times, it looks like The Office.

Martin Freeman kind of reminds me of James Milner in that he's a legend, a trooper and bloody good at his job. He doesn't overact/overreact like some of the current crop, but I get the impression that he's rarely challenged any more and that he's bored.

You know, cast him as a stalking serial killer or an ageing shoemaker who goes on a rampage after a rubber shortage - something that's going to push him a tad. He's one of the country's greats and while he's not widely recognised for his dramatic roles, he underplays his roles which adds a very subtle character layer... But again, I can't help but feel that this comes down to direction and/or script.

ITV dramas are so formulated, that whilst this looks as if it was filmed by students on a module, you can bet your bottom quid that there were a whole host of production whiffers lingering about, checking light intensity and continuity.

But it doesn't show.

This programme would have been 100x better if they had employed a Fincher-like method in long takes and well framed subjects. It'd have felt more realistic if they had mixed up the shotlists and used varying lenses and focal points.

Procedure dramas need to be more diverse than this. Less of the wanton scene filling dialogue, more action, more inner monologues and less of the 90s production standards.

The flavour of TV is changing rapidly... (thanks to Netflix, Hulu etc...) and while ITV and the Beeb are institutions who are well respected - they're stuck in their ways a little when it comes to drama output.

This is a good drama, but it is just that. At seven hours long, you can't help but feel that this would have been better as a 3 hour two-part drama. In fact, that is one of my main gripes with ITV's output of late. They fancy it all up and draw out as much screentime as they can with little or nothing in the way of subtlety.

In fact, I don't even know why I am reviewing this - some ITV intern will be scribbling down all of our user reviews, editorialising and then passing it off as post-screening research.

If you are, and you're reading this, go get John a coffee and tell him to give his head a little wobble!

I won't bore you with the details of the plot, but if you're here, chances are, you're here because either you are a trekker, or have watched Into The Wild.

It's no coincidence that these events took place a few years after McCandless and it is of no coincidence that this film is similar in many, many ways.

It feels like a pet project and I think, at times, it shows. RW has never struck me as a great actor - this film does little to change that notion. When you play in a biographical film, you're taking on a lot of responsibility, and this here film looks like RW, playing make-believe.

There are many struggles one faces on a trail, but most of the real-life struggles aren't portrayed and the filmmakers focused on the characters life and troubles. This has been done before with Into the Wild and I really wanted to like this film, but the similarities with Into the Wild, directly pit it against Into the Wild, and it fails.

Men are torrid, yes, we get it - but people don't need reminding of that every other scene.

If you're looking for the female version of Into the Wild, this is it, but don't expect to like the character - maybe this is the point, who knows? I don't even think the film itself knows what it wants to portray.

I wouldn't recommend this film, it doesn't have much of a centre and tells of the woes of someone running (or walking) from their demons. The character isn't likable enough to warrant redemption, but hey, people are going to be inspired by McCandless and this is what this is.

Do yourself a favour and read the summary on IMDB, it'll save you time and effort and will tell you whether or not you should invest your time in this film.

When I first looked on IMDB at this title, I was fully expecting a large-scale operation within which, I would find some truth and facts about world affairs.

Whilst there are some decent enough connections that the writer has made, there are a swathe of factoids present, as well as facts that are devoutly misinformed.

It is a concoction of a lot of various theories, and when the writer likened Auschwitz to McDonald's... I couldn't help but place on my 'hmmm, okay' hat.

I won't deny that the chap has put a lot of work into this (collating said theories, media and films)... It is precisely that, a collation of internet-based theories, fragments of films (which should be cited as such), and some wildly bizarre accusations.

For one, Woody from Cheers' auld fella killed Kennedy - yes folks... the man who shot Kennedy produced the man who would later become one of the best known bartenders in American history!

It sounds like I'm ridiculing him, I'm not, but the Kennedy section is where this documentary loses its head a bit (no pun intended). Claiming people were hidden in drain sewers because one single frame of a video has his line of sight pass it, does not prove that there was someone in a drain - a muzzle flash in fact would (which in two centuries, the very best mechanics have been unable to stop).

Claims that one of the Bush's concocted the whole enterprise, but then placed himself outside of the very hospital Kennedy was taken (in front of cameras) is quite frankly, absurd.

IN addition, the claims that all of the footage of the day was doctored past the point of physics is, again, quite frankly, absurd.

There are claims here that have some gravitas - but the gentlemen has collated too many various theories and lumped them together in order to make a buffet fit for a conspiracy theorists lunch.

Watch this if you're interested in this kind of thing - but seriously, I would laugh at anyone in the face who takes this as a given.