Reviews

Hands up, I'm copying some of my Rebel Moon Part 1 review, because much of it still applies here. Again, you can call me crazy, but I enjoyed Rebel Moon Part 2 as well. Sure, it's pretty mindless, but it's heart is the right place and there's a lot of fun to be had, if you can switch you brain off.

We keep hearing about how this was originally pitched as a Star Wars movie and you can feel that, however, I'm glad it's not. It is to Star Wars what The Orville is to Star Trek. A bit of an homage/love letter, without the burden of existing continuity and characters.

Most of the (reasonable) flaws I've read are justified, but I also think they're getting blown out of proportion. They're nothing compared to the average Superhero movie.

The most basic question is, why would a giant starship be so bothered about the grain crop from a single farming village on a backwater world? They even establish (in part 1) that there are more civilised towns elsewhere on the same planet! Which means there must be trading hubs of some sort. When deciding to do his 'Seven Samurai in Space' Snyder obviously took it a tad too literally. Battle Beyond the Stars, back in 1980, handled it far more sensibly by up-scaling from a small town to a planet trying to defend itself against invaders. That was already a re-imagining of 'Seven Samurai in Space', and itself made to cash in on the release of Star Wars.

As for other silly moments... There's a little too much Stormtrooper syndrome, where the enemies appear unable (in this case almost literally) to hit a barn door at point blank range. Too many of the characters survive by the grace of the enemy deciding not to shoot them when they clearly can.

One scene that was both good and bad, was the characters talking about their own back stories. Yes, it was nice to see learn about these, but it is presented in such a mechanical way that would have been much better dotted throughout the film, rather than a pre-battle info-dump (Again, Battle Beyond the Stars, Zack! You shouldn't need reminding to look at a Roger Corman B-movie that handles things far more fluidly and efficiently!)

The characters aren't the most memorable, either, but they're also not too bad, for the most part. At least they've had some effort put in, even if they're a little two dimensional.

But, as I said with part 1, beside a few 'facepalm' moments such as those described above (which are nothing in comparison to even many of the 'best' superhero movies), it was fun ride.

The production design and visuals are great fun, if you don't mind Snyder's style, and it even sets up the potential for a couple of interesting sequels (Although only Netflix will know if the two films performed well enough to warrant the next ones).

Too many people are comparing it to Dune, when they should just enjoy it for what it is. A big, dumb, fun, sci-fi action movie to enjoy on your home cinema (And to be honest, I don't think even the recent Dune was as great as many think, and pales in comparison to Lynch's version).

So to sum up, is it big and frequently daft and mindless? Yes, but don't overthink it. It's also just good fun, and at least it's not a sequel, reboot, franchise destroyer.

Call me crazy, but I enjoyed Rebel Moon Part 1. Sure, it's pretty mindless, but it's heart is the right place and there's a lot of fun to be had, if you can switch you brain off.

We keep hearing about how this was originally pitched as a Star Wars movie and you can feel that, however, I'm glad it's not. It is to Star Wars what The Orville is to Star Trek. A bit of an homage/love letter, without the burden of existing continuity and characters.

Most of the (reasonable) flaws I've read are justified, but I also think they're getting blown out of proportion. They're nothing compared to the average Superhero movie.

The most basic question is, why would a giant starship be so bothered about the grain crop from a single farming village on a backwater world? They even establish there are more civilised towns elsewhere on the same planet! Which means there must be trading hubs of some sort. When deciding to do his 'Seven Samurai in Space' Snyder obviously took it a tad too literally. Battle Beyond the Stars, back in 1980, handled it far more sensibly by up-scaling from a small town to a planet trying to defend itself against invaders. That was already a re-imagining of 'Seven Samurai in Space', and itself made to cash in on the release of Star Wars.

And don't get me started on the idiot who managed to pierce a gunnery turret on a spaceship using a spear, which in turn ended up being the pilot of the ship as well, so that it crashed....

But, as I said, beside a few 'facepalm' moments such as those (which are nothing in comparison to even many of the 'best' superhero movies), it was fun ride.

Too many people are comparing it to Dune, when they should just enjoy it for what it is. A big, dumb, fun, sci-fi action movie to enjoy on your home cinema (And to be honest, I don't think even the recent Dune was as great as many think, and pales in comparison to Lynch's version).

So to sum up, is it big and frequently daft and mindless? Yes, but don't overthink it. It's also just good fun, and at least it's not a sequel, reboot, franchise destroyer.

'3 body Problem' is an odd mix of great, mediocre, and sometimes frustrating. The general story, along with the arresting visuals, definitely keep you coming back for more. The ideas and concepts are catnip to any science fiction fan. The characters, on the other hand, are an entirely different ball game. Almost all of the leads are selfish, self-centred, self-righteous and often obnoxious.

From what little I've read, it appears they're a major departure from the books, which I will admit I haven't read yet (Though I'm curious now). Of the 'scientists', the most interesting character is killed early on. The rest are a mix of self-absorbed narcissists, and far too controlled by their random emotions.

Fate of the world at stake? Nah, I don't won't want to help, it's too much responsibility. All humans going to be eradicated? That's fine, because it's way off in the future, who cares about them? All of human civilisation and your descendants to be destroyed by heartless aliens? Well, my superior did something harsh but necessary to try and combat a seemingly unstoppable threat to all humanity, so I'm going to act morally superior and not help by spitting my dummy out.

There also seems to be an obsession with Netflix (and Amazon) of having characters casually doing illicit substances all the time, as if it adds anything whatsoever to the characters or situation beyond making them feel even more weak-willed and pathetic.

Of the non-scientist characters, Wade (Liam Cunningham) and Shi (Benedict Wong) are by far the most interesting. Both are struggling to get a handle on an impossible, unknown threat, and doing their best to fight it. Sometimes that means making the most horrific decisions for the greater good. That moral grey area could have made for some interesting conversations with the other leads who felt squeamish, but instead it just ends up with them being high-and-mighty and acting morally superior. Never once did anyone sit down and say "Okay, what would you suggest? Is this terrible? Yes. Did we have a choice, fighting this enemy, given what is at stake and the odds against us?"

Ultimately, it also feels a little aimless and lacklustre. The big event that this series was leading up to failed. In addition, far too much time was spent on a rather boring character leading into it. (I have little doubt that character will 'return' in season two, but at this point it makes it all feel pointless).

For an introductory series, it fails to give a sense of satisfying conclusion. You can have a story where the heroes 'fail' in order to make their success all the more satisfying down the line, but when they fail so spectacularly at the first hurdle it just feels a bit pointless. Having said all that, the interesting ideas and concepts make it worth watching, and at least it wasn't superheroes...

This is actually a rather sweet little coming-of-age drama, and there's a lot to like. Sure, it's not doing anything groundbreaking and it was never going to compete with some of the greatest such examples (usually from the 80s!), but it has a pleasant charm of its own that overcomes the low budget.

The child actors are surprisingly good and in fact the lead character's young brother, Evan, often steals the show with some of the best lines. In addition, the young romance is innocent and endearing, and the characters are more nuanced than usual.

For example, the lead character, Itsy, treads a fine line and although she is the stereotypical 'moody teen who wants to go back to the city', young actress Emma Treblay manages to stop her becoming unsympathetic or too obnoxious. Likewise, the obligatory 'Little Brother' manages to be amusing and likable without going over-the-top and becoming annoying. The brother/sister dynamic is rather nice, playing into the 'teenager having to put up with young sibling' trope, but avoiding too much of the angst, in that they still talk and get along even if occasionally rolling their eyes at one another.

Likewise, the character of Calvin, who believes his parents were abducted, is played as an oddball without making his character cringe worthy or too embarrassing (despite one or two moments that come perilously close). The writer and director don't play into the obvious/over-used route of 'psychologically damaged' character.

A quick mention should also be made of Elizabeth Mitchell's brief appearance, playing a character that is ultimately unsympathetic and doesn't fit the usual Hollywood stereotypes. She does a great job with a small role.

There are a few stumbles along the way, such as the writer/director conveniently making Itsy blind to the obvious manipulations of fellow school pupil, Heather. Also, Calvin is a little too oblivious of some things, for example the Star Trek hand gesture joke. For a character as obsessed with aliens and Nasa, as he is, it makes no sense. It would be akin to a character obsessed with military history not knowing who Sun Tzu is, or a cooking obsessed individual who doesn't know what a Michelin star is.

Those issues aside, this was on track to be a rather pleasing little movie and then the final scene came around.... Oh dear... What were they thinking? It pulls the rug out from under the viewer, and reduces a relatively grounded and character-based drama into a cheesy parody. I have no issues with the alien abduction being real, and in fact would have been disappointed with a typical 'oh, there were real-world mundane reasons' story line. However, the execution just ruins the whole experience. If it had been kept to Calvin's father stepping out of the forest with bright lights behind him, implying the truth of what had happened, it would have been sufficient (not unlike a child of Roy Neary, meeting him years later, in a sequel to Close Encounters!). Instead, we are treated to some childish, 50's B-movie aliens, along with Calvin's father wearing what can only be referred to as a badly stereotyped costume that would have been rejected from the original Lost in Space! Don't get me wrong - I love 50's B-movie science fiction, but a parody of it doesn't work in this context.

The movie could have had a very satisfying conclusion, with no more budget or effort. Perhaps, after another ten years, Itsy and Calvin might have revisited the clearing, to introduce their five year old child to his or her grandfather, with an expression of awe, as the spaceship descends.... Anything, but what we got...

If only the writer and director could go back and fix the ending, this would be a rather nice and satisfying coming-of-age drama that would linger in people's memories. Instead, it pops the balloon in the final moments and destroys much of the effort that came before. It's rather a shame, for what is otherwise a well made small film.

This is yet another fun romantic drama, with a healthy dash of comedy and even a little action here and there.

The core of the story is Nam-shin III (Seo Kang-Joon) being replaced by his robot counterpart, who gradually learns human emotions and behaviours, as he falls for Kang So Bong (Gong Seung-Yeon). In the background, there's the usual mix of family drama and dastardly villains attempting to thwart the good guys.

Seo Kang-Joon is superb as both android and human Nam-shin. Through a few expressive facial movements and body language (aided by hairstyle), he creates such different characters between the two, that you're never in doubt as to which is which (except when the plot requires one to impersonate the other).

Likewise, Gong Seung-Yeon plays Kang So Bong in a way that maintains her likability even when her character motivations are initially blurred, and there is great chemistry between the two of them.

The main villain is suitably villainous, although I do wish there had been a more satisfying payoff at the end.

The negatives aren't major, but there are a handful. For starters, Kang So Bong is set up as a skilled fighter, but that never really pays off, and it would have been enjoyable to see her holding her own side-by-side with Android Nam-shin at some point.

Story-wise, it does get somewhat overly convoluted by the end. "Person A knows that person B knows, but person B knows that they know, but person A doesn't know that person B knows that they know... " Then magnify that a few times.

Also, toward the end it does drag things out a little longer than needed.

That said, the strength of the story is Nam-shins gradual discovery of his 'humanity' and his romance with So Bong, who herself has to come to terms with being in love with an android. Overall, it's a satisfying and enjoyable romance with a sci-fi twist that makes it all the more fun.

On the whole, this is a great, lighthearted and cheerful series. At its core, it's a romcom mixed with a superhero origin story, with a dash of crime-fighting and mystery.

Park Bo-young as Bong-soon truly carries the show. She's impossibly cute and adorable, which makes it all the more hilarious and satisfying when she kicks posterior and beats up the villains.

Park Hyung-sik does a good job as the main romantic interest, though it does get to a point where you will roll your eyes at how often he does "Sharp intake of breath and look away with a grin and shake of his head."

For a fun romcom it also surprises with a disturbingly sadistic and nasty villain, and makes you want to see him get his just deserts. This element gives the show its extra depth, as between the comedy/romance, it has some serious moments and drama.

If I had any criticisms, its that the parts with the construction company/criminal gang feel like filler after a while, and the humour around them is somewhat forced and tiresome (although they do serve some small purpose toward the end). Also, in general it does drag a little before the finale.

Given Bong-soon's love of a particular heroic video game character, and the designs for a separate, hammer-wielding game character based on her, there was what felt like the setup for how she would become a local crime-fighting superhero. Although this does eventually happen, it sadly misses those elements. For example, how fun would it have been for her to have some sort of disguise that was a hybrid of the two game characters, including the big hammer as her weapon of choice?

If they ever made a second series around her (not just the spin off, Nam-soon), it would be good to see her heroic origin, as this almost plays like the _setup_ for her superhero origin story. It's excellent fun overall, and you can't help but love Park Bo-young, who manages to make her character charming even in the occasional scene where she could have easily come over as a tad whiny.

Now, if only I could convince DC to do the perfect crossover, where Bong-soon has a team up with Wonder Woman...

Okay, it's that time of year to watch a few cheesy Christmas romance movies... The premise here is actually not that bad, the execution, however...

The lead actres, Jillian Murray, is decent, but the rest of the cast are rather wooden, not helped by a similarly wooden script.

What really doesn't help, is that a movie about two artists clearly didn't consult a single artist! Or use one to make a couple of paintings or sketches! Instead we're treated to a selection of photos run through Photoshop filters. But... even worse, when the characters are talking about drawing and painting, they treat them as two totally unrelated skills, and the male character acts like working digitally, doing a highly successful job, isn't 'proper work'. He can hold a pencil, but not paintbrush? What is this strange thing? And likewise the leading lady can paint with a brush but doesn't know how to use a pencil?! Really? It would be like a story with a baker and a chef, and the chef doesn't know how to turn on a mixer and the baker doesn't know how to use the oven...

There are other minor annoyances, such as supposedly drawing with pencils but resting your palm on the paper, but the worst offence is implying that the lead character paints from left to right, with quite literally half the painting complete and one half not touched, beyond a 'hint' of a sketch! It's even clearly digitally feathered out with a soft blend. To top it all off, you can see the crisp, sharp edges where it's been printed! Honestly, put _some_ effort in!

As for the story and script, the leading lady manages at one point to ask the leading man if his parents regretted giving up their careers to raise him... Charming! Talk about asking the guy if he feels guilty being alive!

Then, for the ending she makes him feel guilty for taking a fantastic work opportunity, after he offers to take her with him to London for a year! Mainly because after a few days seeing each other, she doesn't want to leave town, and doesn't want him to go anywhere. Bearing in mind, she's giving up her family job as a chef to paint... So she's not exactly tied down. As a result, they both end up giving up their existing jobs. Umm... where is their money coming from, exsctly? Dreamland? Do they think a few paintings and sketches are going to pay the bills straight away?

Having said all that, I've seen worse, so I'll still give it a 4 (that's on a scale of Christmas movies of this type). It kept us watching till the end, but only just...

Like many, I really wanted to like this... It tries to be relatively original and it isn't a superhero movie, or a sequel, or a reboot of an old franchise... If only it had been thought through.

Gareth Edwards has made a film that is visually stunning. One of the most believable and realistic-looking science fiction films in a while. It's all meant to be deep and meaningful, but ultimately falls a bit flat, due to a simplistic outlook and the now tiresome "we're really the villains!" stereotype, accompanied by poor logic and plotting.

The Americans suffered a nuclear detonation that destroyed Los Angeles, supposedly due to malicious AI. As such, they have banned AI in America and set out to destroy it in the rest of the world. Their primary target is a mysterious AI creator, but at this point the genie is out of the bottle, so it doesn't really make a lot of sense. Other countries are all living 'peacefully' with robots, but seem to tolerate America blowing up large populated areas in their aims.

It makes no sense. These other countries are manufacturing robots like there's no tomorrow. An endless supply of soldiers, if you will. Imagine if, during the cold war, the Americans had abstained from making nukes, but still waged war on the enemy - Do you think Russia wouldn't have retaliated and just shrugged it off?

Let's bullet point some of the most blatant issues...

• Many robots appear to want to blend in and look human, even to the point of adverts asking humans to donate their likeness. Yet, despite the ability to perfectly mimic skin over most of their bodies, they don't bother with the sides/backs of their heads. Why? What of the robots with weird heads? Do they not want to look human? What if they do?

• The robots claim "We were made to be slaves, but we just want to be equal." Okay, so why would they have been created with such a level of intelligence and free will in the first place? There's no hint of, for example, a computer virus that sparked free will or freedom from controlling protocols. On top of that, once they're equal and free (not to mention effectively immortal), why keep manufacturing them, as shown? For what purpose?

• Police robots all look the same, despite a variety of robots everywhere else, implying they've been created as police robots. So where was their free will and choice, if they were created for that purpose? And, if they were created to 'instinctively' want to do that task, then other robots would have been made in the same way, and been perfectly 'happy' being whatever they were made for, because they were developed to _want_ to do whatever they were made for.

• There are no hints to any Asimov-like laws, and the robots are happy to defend themselves and kill humans when required. So, why are they so 'peaceful' and determined to live with humans? At the very least, would there not be factions? Some who wanted to live with humans and others who wanted to control or eradicate them?

• The Americans use giant mobile tanks, but they are very easily immobilised (not to mention, no impication of how they got them into enemy territory, considering that earlier in the film they have troops doing a covert mission into enemy territory). They can also fire perfect homing missiles, yet in a later scene use their own AI 'bomb' robots to run into an enemy. Why use them instead of missiles? Why even go in for such a large groundscale offensive in the first place, when you don't need to? They're also shown willing to bomb large populated areas, so why not just get rid of the Child that way?

• The humans often fire smoke bombs, despite the fact that this would likely be more advantageous to the robots who could easily have thermal vision options.

• Why are AI/robots such awful shots? Are they related to Stormtroopers? Their strengths and abilities all seem to be as limited as humans.

• In a throwaway line, one robot tells us that the bomb that destroyed Los Angeles was down to a human coding error. That's all we get as the basis for the war. Are we supposed to believe that the Americans have based the entire war on a false premise? Okay, fine - if so, why would they not just blame a foreign power, rather than blaming the thing that would give them superior military and manufacturing capabilities? Their motivation doesn't make sense. Not to mention the immortality option (see the point lower down about storing memories/consciousness).

• The Child has essentially 'magical' abilities over technology, and was supposedly developed to be able to 'grow'. No explanation of how it does this, particularly with its mechanical parts. Is it somewhat cyborg? It all feels very reminscent of The Golden Child, without Eddie Murphy's sense of fun and adventure. None of this magical ability is sufficiently explained, beyond the creator basing the robot foetus on her own unborn. Being a robot, why would its 'magical' abilities grow with it?

• The Child appears to have been raised and stored in some giant, roughly interiored bunker, (with an easily hackable entrance code, no less). The Child doesn't even have anything beyond a chair, TV and some toys. If it was so precious and important and the other robots cared so much, why not at least the semblence of some nice rooms? They are shown to have advanced and clean labs, but they couldn't do better for the Child? Why not give it a wig and let it live incognito with the locals who are robot friendly and could provide natural interaction to grow and learn with?

• At the end, when the Child is captured, the Americans don't simply shoot it or destroy it by conventional means. Instead, they decide they want to use a technological method of shutting it down, for no reason other than it means the main character has to come in to do the job, and promptly uses it as a way to escape with the Child. They then handily escape with little effort, aboard a shuttle to the moon.

• They hijack this shuttle and head to the orbital weapons platform. The platform, America's top military asset (so think of it like 10 aircraft carriers combined), lets them dock. It doesn't shoot this huge threat down. Remember, they know the Child is the weapon that can stop them, and is aboard, but they let it land. Then, conveniently, this massive floating base is virtually unmanned/guarded for no particular reason, allowing the Child easy access to run all the way to the control/data centre of this massive structure (again, unguarded).

• For some reason this base has its own farms, for no other reason than to have a more visually pleasing 'tragic' moment at the end, when everything blows up.

• The Child stops the tracking of the bombs that have been dropped to destroy the main strongholds of the robots, so the bombs merely crash without destruction. Remember, even since the cold war, we've had the tech to launch guided missiles that follow their own trajectory and targets, without the need for guidance, and they wouldn't 'stop' simply if the command centre was hit. And if it was all as simple as also placing a big bomb on this base, why have the robots not hijacked a space shuttle and blown it up in a more traditional manner already? Based on what the characters do at the end, nothing has been stopping them before now. The Child wasn't even necessary.

• It is established early on that it is possible to download human consciousness into a data chip. Initially, this is to communicate with a dead soldier by linking him to a robot, and they get limited time to converse. If the connection was direct, this may make some sort of sense. It would have implied it's not storage but merely a 'link'. However, later on it is established to be storage. Bear in mind, this process is also shown to be quick and easy. This means that relative 'immortality' would have been available to humans, and given how the robots are churned out, this need not even be limited to the rich. Also, it negates the earlier usage with the dead soldier. It should have been corrupted or incomplete data, like a damaged disc, not 'complete but time limited' which then makes no sense.

• For a final fight, a tentacled robot is suddenly activated for convenience, so the hero can have a hand-to-hand struggle. Why not some automated turret? Nothing like this tentacle robot has been seen earlier in the film.

• This base, run by robot-hating/fearing people has a storage area full of inactive robots. Why? Experimentation? At least give us a hint. One of them even happens to have the dead creator's likeness, so her consciousness can be handilly plugged in, all for her to have a tearful last moment with the hero before they die. She doesn't even seem to question why or how she is where she is.

• As for the giant ship... Half the time it appears to be hovering at perhaps aircraft altitude, at other times it appears to be in LEO. When it targets something, it does so with giant laser beams and seemingly needs to be over its target. But at the end, its laser beams are targetedball over at least a continent and guiding many missiles at once...

After all that, I'm not even listing _all_ the issues, just the main ones I can remember. The more realistic, serious and dramatic a film is, the more it needs to stick to logic and follow consequences. Sadly, The Creator starts with an interesting premise and is wonderfully made, but ultimately falls on its robot face when it comes to the basics. It's all the more disappointing, because it should have been a great antidote the sea of mindless and formulaic superhero movies we keep getting. Sure, it's a mix of Blade Runner, District 9, Chappie, The Golden Child, etc... but it still could have been an enjoyable mish-mash of those, if thought theough. Gareth Edwards made the one good Disney Star Wars film, and I had hoped for more...

I'm going to give it a 'four', because it had so much potential and is visually excellent, but sadly it doesn't really work in the writing or logic departments...

Imagine the movie tagline... "Two families, forced together; one group are elitist snobs who believe they're better and more virtuous than anyone else, the other group welcome their makeshift family into their lives without reservation, judgement or animosity for the holidays, but together they'll learn the true value of Christmas together."

From that, you would expect the old "rich snobs Vs down-to-earth hard-working/poor family" trope, but in this case they've flipped how the families act. That itself could have been an interesting concept, but in the usual examples, the 'rich' family learn the error of their ways, and learn to enjoy Christmas with the normal/everyday/poor family. In this version, the everyday family act like spoilt brats and elitist snobs, and we're still expected to side with them and like them.

The first film wasn't great, but it was a bit of silly festive fun. This sequel is, honestly, quite awful. There are a few relatively amusing scenes that could have aided toward a better movie, which is why I'm not giving it one star, but they are few and far between. It's also reasonably acted and produced (for this kind of movie).

James (Asa Butterfield) and Hayley (Cora Kirk), are the archetypal "rich lad from, aristocratic family" and "poor girl from peasant stock", who's families collide in a mishmash of preconceptions and stereotypes. It kind of worked in the first film, but it was aided by the two leads spending the film apart, because you didn't get the chance to feel the lack of chemistry that comes over in this lacklustre sequel.

But... On to the 'good' stuff... The main story revolves around Hayley getting the wrong end of the stick, and thinking James is going to propose. During this initial setup, she and her family enjoy a luxurious stay in a five star hotel, taking advantage of the clothes and food, whilst James' family end up in a hovel that that was meant for Hayley's family (all because they were unwilling to accept the generosity of James' family - in addition, the location is too absurd even for the 'rich/poor' contrast of the story). Bear in mind, though, Hayley's family are more than willing to take FULL advantage of the luxury during the accidental switch.

Later, when James discovers Hayley's mistaken assumption, he decides (albeit drunkenly) to propose anyway, because he had wanted to and only held back by her earlier request. In typical "oh no! I can see what's coming!" fashion, he practices his sincere proposal with an old friend. Hayley of course witnesses this for the sake of drama, then acts like the most spoilt brat possible...

For starters, James had not seen his friend in years, so would not have been making a genuine proposal to her at this point, and Hayley knew that. In addition, she has also discovered James has an incredible opportunity to go to film school abroad and she acts all put-out, as if he had not been willing to tell her, and acting as if it was a personal slight against her, because, despite his offer to take her with him, she's "not a charity case and can't afford to be in his world." Bear in mind, at this point James had only learnt about his opportunity the day before, and had clearly been trying to find a chance to tell her about it during the day... So he gets his good fortune thrown back in his face and expected to feel guilty, as if it's a personal insult to Hayley. She moans about how she would always be the odd-one-out in his world, despite being welcomed into his family with open arms. So, who is the one with the issues there?

Simultaneously, Hayley's family throw James' family's generosity back in their faces and act all insulted by it, as if they had been dragged kicking and screaming to this glorious holiday in the snowy Alps, when they REALLY just wanted to be home for Christmas (in Macclesfield). Remember, they had been perfectly willing to revel in every moment of luxury till this point... At the other family's expense, who had welcomed them with open arms and were totally willing to pay for everything. The worst they could be accused of is the father's American girlfriend being a little egotistical. She wasn't even nasty or horrible to them! Quite the opposite, she welcomed them and spent time with them and eventually had fun with them, despite their boorish behaviour.

Then, after many protestations to make the "rich" family feel guilty, Hayley's family decide to fly home (on Christmas day, no less...). James does the expected thing of stopping the plane to apologise for doing nothing wrong, and then the families all spend a 'happy' Christmas together again. Hayley's family are willing to accept the generosity of James's family once more, of course (because it's convenient), despite still moaning that "Christmas should be at home."

James' father's American girlfriend is even expected to apologise for implying the ungrateful, elitist snobs should have shown a little gratitude earlier, after acting like spoilt brats!

Overall, it ends up being an unsatisfying tale, because you feel James almost made a lucky escape from the snobs who looked down their noses at he and his family but, instead, the fool chases after the ungrateful girl anyway, who then condescends to give him a 'second chance'...

The first John Wick was good fun. It's over-the-top, but enjoyable nonetheless. After the villains kill his puppy, being the last gift from his dying wife, we were provided with a great alternative to the usual motivation you get in such films.

After that, JWII and JWIII became increasingly ridiculous. Even for films like this, there's a point at which 'absurd but fun' turns into 'so absurd it's no longer fun'.

JW:IV is akin to watching someone else play a video game of the same repetitive thing, but also on 'god' mode with infinite stats, so you don't even have the fun of seeing the gamer's skill at play. It even looks and feels like a video game. The character is never injured beyond an 'ooh, I look tired' level, despite incidents that would have broken every bone in even a super-hero's body. You can shrug off one or two silly moments like that, but after the tenth or twentieth or thirtieth...

The fight scenes are so long, so repetitive and have so little motivation, that you cease to care what's happening and genuinely feel like hitting fast forward. It's a bad sign when you want to fast forward through an action movie to get to the more interesting non-action moments.

Ultimately, given that the character has had increasingly less and less motivation as each movie has progressed, we get to a point where the 'dramatic' conclusion leaves you cold. John Wick's motivation by this point is absolutely NOTHING, bar survival, so his 'sacrifice' ends up leaving you feeling that it was all pointless, especially considering the somewhat lacklustre villain. (Although I'm sure John will turn out to have survived for the next film anyway)

A more interesting angle would have been teaming up with all his former allies to finally take down the 'high table'. Instead, we're treated to a shoulder-shrugging conclusion that was supposed to be dramatic and emotional but leaves you just not caring.

It took two sittings to bother completing, but I'll give it a 5/10, because some of it is still well filmed and visually interesting, though mostly in the first hour.

The films drop approximately a mark each time...

JW:I - 8/10 JW:II - 7/10 JW:III - 6/10 JW:IV - 5/10 (being very generous)

'The Postman' was released at around the same time as 'Titanic' and, being a Cameron fan, I went to see that movie first. I remember walking out of the cinema feeling a little deflated and disappointed, then seeing the poster for 'The Postman'. It wasn't a great poster, but my friend and I decided to give it a chance after the mediocre 'Titanic'. We weren't expecting much, and the cinema was pretty empty...

I came away from 'The Postman' both surprised and impressed. Long movies have become in-vogue at the moment, but rarely justify their run time. 'The Postman' is one of those rare treats that flies by and easily justifies its length. At the time, Costner was in the critics' bad books, for the fun 'Mad Max on Water' clone that was 'Waterworld'. Spiralling budgets on a big post-apocalyptic adventure movie didn't win Costner any fans in Hollywood, even though audiences reasonably enjoyed it. So, along he comes, making yet _another_ long, big-budget post-apocalyptic adventure...

It is well known that 'The Postman' was somewhat of a box-office flop. Perhaps it disappointed those expecting something more 'Mad Max'-like. Instead, 'The Postman' is a more realistic, thoughtful and less action-oriented movie. In all likelihood, I think action-fans may have expected more action, whilst normal viewers perhaps shied away from another post-apocalyptic sci-fi adventure that, on the surface, appeared to have an unusual and even potentially silly premise.

It also has themes that may put some people off, such as patriotism, accompanied by a love of one's country and its founding principles. In this cynical age I think they may not have gone down well with many. I'm not American, but I appreciated the up-front honesty of its characters who wanted to bring back a better world founded on idealism and hope. Even with its imperfections, they saw that the world they had lost was far superior to any alternative.

Putting aside the issues others might have had with it, 'The Postman' is a beautifully crafted film and well acted by all involved. Costner's character is a nostalgic man who yearns for the past, and simply wants to avoid and hide from the troubles of the world in which he now lives. However, opportunity (or perhaps fate) sets him down a path that brings hope to many. As a consequence, he rises to the challenge that was caused by his own deception, itself only born from a need to survive. Ultimately, something as innocent as delivering the post and establishing connection between far-flung communities, becomes a focal point and a catalyst for reforming society. In addition, even the romantic elements in the movie are handled with nuance, and are forged through the hard life the characters are forced to live.

As for the villain, General Bethlehem (played by Will Patton), he is one of the most fascinating villains to grace our screens in many a year. He rules not by sheer physical strength or evil genius, but by power of will. He is a force of nature, created by the circumstances that surround the fall of civilisation. Stronger men bow to him in the same way as they would any historical dictator. It is through pure force of personality, that others fear taking action and instead follow him, accepting that life as 'the way things are'.

Before I conclude, I should also add that the film's backbone is a stunning soundtrack by James Newton Howard, and some of his finest work. It lends the film a delicate emotional core when required, as well as a rousing and epic atmosphere when events take a more dramatic turn.

As the story progresses, we reach a conclusion that hints at a great battle between both sides. Those under the thrall of General Bethlehem, and the motley association of settlers who have finally decided to step up and defend themselves. It's a great setup but, at the time, it also felt rather stereotypical, awaiting the 'big final battle'. Instead, we are treated to a wonderful twist where Costner manages to fight Bethlehem one-on-one. This results in what can only be described as a wrestle in the dirt. It might not be a classic 'fight' scene, but it perfectly sums up the conclusion of events, whittling it down to a playground bully wrestling with a man who represents every flawed ideal, struggling to build a better, safer, more moral world out of the humble dirt from which we all began. Some might find it anticlamactic but, personally, I found it to be a breath of fresh air, and the finest way for events to conclude.

For the epilogue, we are granted a brief moment to see that all his efforts succeeded, and that civilised society will once again rise from the ashes. It is an uplifting and hopeful movie, that leaves you with a great sense of satisfaction. The message isn't naive or foolish. It realises that, at its best, civilisation _is_ a fragile thing to be protected, and understands that it is all-to-easy to tear down and return to chaos.

Before diving into the movie, I think we should talk about the context of the film. When it came out, and how such things were viewed at the time.

Years ago, I was fascinated by the whole 'alien abduction' phenomena, and read numerous books and documentaries. Am I a believer? I don't know. I still find the subject fascinating, but it has become such a bloated and absurd cultural phenomena now. For every interesting case, such as a reliable pilot who witnesses something, or a highly qualified psychiatrist who is drawn to a recurring nightmare from multiple, unrelated patients, there are a hundred cases of fringe individuals claiming to be in contact with aliens through crystals, and receiving in-depth knowledge about the end of the world and how we can all save ourselves by hugging trees and only eating insects. The waters are so muddied, that it's near impossible to take it seriously in this day and age (perhaps that was always the idea?).

'Communion' should be taken in the context of being made at the tail-end of a decade when, although increasing in popularity, there was still a significant stigma attached to alien abduction stories. The little (wider) public exposure was via a few movies such as 'Close Encounters' or 'Hangar 18'. I picked up Strieber's book when it was originally released, and it made for a fascinating read (if you're interested in the subject), and I remember enjoying the movie. It was at a time when the internet was in its infancy (few, if any people had it), and whilst the topic of alien abduction was popular, it was yet to have blown up into the creature it is today. Now, it is a commonly accepted part of popular culture, yet simultaneously ignored more than ever, as a serious subject..

Taking that into account, how should Communion be viewed? As Truth or Fiction? Or some bizarre combination of the two? If taken at his word, it seems clear that Whitley Strieber went through some horrific and psychologically disturbing experiences, whether you believe them to be real or in his mind. As such, you can view the film as more of a meditation on that. An attempt to piece together, accept, and live with the memory of events that would otherwise drive you to question your reality and sanity.

This is not a 'beginning, middle and end' movie. It is a slice out of a family's life, and how a series of specific events made them re-evaluate their world.

One major element I believe is overlooked, is just how natural the script is. I have rarely watched a movie, and felt quite like I'm a fly on the wall listening to actual conversations, than I have with Communion. You feel as though you ware watching a real family, in everyday interactions. In doing this, it also means that the trauma of the characters, most especially 'Whit' himself, feels all-the-more real.

Watching Christopher Walken play Whitley Strieber, is a revelation. It's Christopher Walken turned up to eleven, and one of his greatest performances. It could have easily resulted in an over-the-top caricature, but instead he comes over as an eccentric, slightly odd, but thoroughly 'real' character come to life. He may be nothing like the real Whitley Strieber, but you buy into his portrayal one hundred percent.

One of the creepiest moments committed to film, is when Whitley undergoes his first hypnotic regression, and sees that 'face' coming out from behind his wardrobe. The combination of atmospheric yet understated visuals combined with Walken's performance are superb.

Lindsay Crouse does an excellent job as his wife, Anne. Again, the script, along with her acting, create a very 'human' character on-screen. If I had one complaint, it might be her own hypnotic regression scene, where she feels forced and mechanical. On the other hand, you could also take that in the context of how a real person might 'perform' as they 'act out' a memory. So it depends on how you view it.

Frances Sternhagen, as the psychiatrist who aids Whitley, is reliable as always, and I would be remiss if I didn't mention the child actor who played the son, Joel. Child acting is always difficult to judge but, for me, his performance felt like a natural, child's performance. It didn't feel like a 'practiced professional', and as such aided in the film's grounded atmosphere, albeit dealing with fantastical events.

Credit should also be given to the wonderful Andreas Katsulas, of Babylon 5 fame, who is a superb actor that breaths life into a small yet significant part.

It is a shame that the film is let down somewhat by the quality of the creature effects. They might have worked, had they been used more sparingly and with suitably dark lighting to mask their flaws. Instead, they are seen far too clearly and their simplicity is a little too obvious, and it detracts from the hideous terror that Whitley is experiencing.

A nod should be made to Eric Clapton's main theme that sets the tone, and Allan Zavod for the simple-yet-atmospheric score that fills out the rest of the film.

So how to sum up 'Communion'? It is a haunting film that attempts to tackle the emotional fallout of such events, rather than attempting to explain them in any logical way. It says "Here is what I believe I saw, and what I remember happening to me. How can I, and my family, learn to live with this?"

One of the final scenes in an art gallery, with the characters talking to the camera, is merely a way of saying "We really don't know, but here's how we carry on." rather than any true attempt at providing answers.

Watch it with those thoughts in mind, and you may well find yourself hypnotised by the story, whether you believe it is true or not.

I enjoy a good, cheesy, silly Christmas movie. Sadly, this one really falls flat by the end.

The initial concept itself could have worked: Cynical woman who needs to regain a love of Christmas, has romance with adult who somehow believes in Santa Claus.

To make that truly work, you need something like a twist at the end where it turns out he's a retired elf, or one of Santa's sons or something.

What we end up with is a man-child character who feels totally out of place in an adult relationship. Not only that, but a man-child who is so shallow that their love of Christmas is based around only the most surface aspects of it. The sparkly lights, the over-the-top decorations, going on sleigh rides etc.

Sure, by the end he is supposed to have 'learnt his lesson' and realise it's about family and those we love, but he comes over as so selfish, childish and idiotic, it's too late by then.

To top it all off, for a movie about the spirit of Christmas, we actually get the message pushed that it transcends religion and never once are its origins mentioned (and the only religion briefly mentioned isn't related to Christmas!). Sure, plenty of Christmas movies avoid the religious aspect, but they _also_ don't go out of their way to say its irrelevant. In this case, they're actually trying to exclude and divorce Christmas from its origins. Umm... Sorry, the clue is in the name, whether or not you are religious. I'm not especially, but neither am I afraid to acknowledge and appreciate its origins, either. Heck, even if you somehow reduce Christmas to Santa Claus, you still have to acknowledge the origins of St. Nick!!

Ultimately, the movie falls flat due to the lack of chemistry between the leads (despite apparently being married in real life), and the utter shallowness and childishness of the male lead who shouldn't be in an adult relationship.

Christina Moore, as Lisa, is actually not bad as the lead, but her character should have run a mile... Most especially after the moment when Tom (John Ducey) would rather turn down a romantic evening with the woman he (supposedly) loves, and break up their relationship, to go on a sleigh ride on his own, all because he loves the shallow trappings of Christmas so much, without understanding any of it...

Sadly, I have to say avoid this one!!

The original 'Enchanted' is a fun melding of Disney Fairytale mixed with modern RomCom, and it works well. It's not the greatest movie ever made, but it has a smile-inducing charm of its own. Amy Adams is superb, and James Marsden steals the show as the classic Prince, whilst Susan Sarandan and Timothy Spall have fun with their roles.

Given Disney's horrendous track record in recent years, I didn't have much hope for this sequel, and fully expected something as weak as Hocus Pocus 2 (which whilst not awful, was certainly mediocre and lacked the originals charm).

Having watched the original 'Enchanted' and this sequel back-to-back, I was quite pleasantly surprised. This was fun, and lacked any shoe-horned agendas. They also did something different with the story, rather than repeating the original with a few changes.

Amy Adams is once again excellent (and appears to be pulling a Tom Cruise. She even somehow manages to look more attractive!), and James Marsden steals every scene he's in. Idina Menzel also has a bit more to do this time around and gets to exercise those vocal chords.

As for other supporting cast, Maya Rudolph isn't quite up to Susan Sarandan level as the villain, but she's a different kind of villain anyway. Patrick Dempsey once again does what he needs to, but is a little under utilised, as if they're not quite sure what to do with him, but at least he aids in saving the day and his family.

The only other (very minor) complaint I might have, is that the 2D animated portions just aren't up to the same quality as the original, but I suspect this is more down to Disney no longer having those skilled artists and animators they once had.

It's also worth noting that, shock of shocks, Disney shows an essentially happy and stable family that have stayed together and fight to stay together, as though families are a good thing. The husband is supportive of his wife, the daughter loves her step-mother (despite the issues that trigger the story), and the mother wants to make a happy home! I know, this is from modern Disney! Who'd have thought it?!

Overall, it's fun, magical and, most importantly, leaves you with a smile. Even the songs work well (of which there are more) and feel like a slice of old-school Disney (they're significantly better than any of the current-era Disney animated movies).

It definitely gets a thumbs-up from me!

My other half and I were big fans of the first and second seasons. Let's be honest, The Orville is essentially a love-letter to Star Trek (particularly Next Gen). What it adds is a light-hearted touch that makes the characters feel more human, alongside a new universe that has none of the baggage, so you can tell whatever new stories you wish.

So many new TV shows leave you on a downer these days, because they're trying to be dark and gritty, or else pushing some 'message' over story and character. Even new Trek. The Orville hearkened back to the days of science fiction that explored weird and wonderful ideas, with characters who you want to see succeed.

The lighter touch meant you could be a little more forgiving of the occasionally weak logic, and just have fun each episode. When they did delve into more serious topics, they made a good effort to be even handed and explore both sides, whilst maintaining the tone so that you still came away with a smile.

The Orville was not ground breaking. Many of its stories and character types were heavily modified versions of those created before, in Star Trek, but it never ceased to be fun and there was nothing else like it on current TV.

On top of that, the way the characters could laugh and joke together, and make mistakes, made them feel more realistic and likeable than Star Trek often did (perhaps excluding the original series).

Then along came season 3. What happened? Whilst the humour was still there, albeit a little more subdued, it was dotted amidst heavy handed 'lesson/lecture' stories. The one or two episodes that were more traditional, were so badly written from a plot and logic perspective, that they were merely frustrating and annoying ('Shadow Realms' most especially). The morality and conscience of the characters often vanished.

Far too much of season 3 also centres around Dr Finn's 'relationship' with the emotionless android, Isaac. Episode after episode feels like someone in an abusive relationship, who keeps going back again and again because "They can see the good in them." Or in this case "She can see the humanity." When every story manages to reenforce that Isaac never really grows beyond a 'familiarity in his circuits', and cares nothing for Dr. Finn.

Ultimately, however, the episodes that broke the proverbial camel's back, for me, were 'Twice in a Lifetime' and 'Domino' (please check out my individual reviews for each). These episodes turned our leading characters into truly unlikeable villains, who flip allegiances at the drop of a hat and twist their ethics to the convenience of the moment.

After all that, my original rating has dropped to a 6, and it's only that high because of the first and second seasons offsetting my feelings of seasons 3.

If you dislike season 3, people often claim that you simply miss the humour, and this is so much better and 'serious' and 'gritty'. No. What I miss are well thought out stories and entertainment with likeable characters. Ed and Kelly have truly become the most reprehensible villains by the end of this season. If they make a series 4, I hope it returns to the quality writing it began with, but I'm not even sure if I care for the characters any more...

Given that I'm someone who, in addition to dramatic and serious movies, greatly enjoys silly B-movies, I find it strange that I'm increasingly reaching a point where most big-budget action adventure movies are leaving me totally cold.

There's no real point discussing the plot of 'Thor: Love and Thunder'. It's essentially a series of jokes and special effects mixed in a blender to entertain for a couple of hours. In that respect, it sort-of succeeds. It's never boring, it's occasionally amusing, and... Frankly, that's all you can say about it. I can barely remember anything about it, beyond the villain actually being one of the most interesting the MCU has had in a long time (albeit not used especially well). Even the cancer side-story given to Natalie Portman's character feels like something that could have had depth in a more serious movie but just becomes a forgettable background element amidst all the noise.

If you care about the character of Thor, it carries on doing what 'Thor: Ragnarok' did, which is turn him into a pathetic and increasingly immature joke. If you don't care about the character (which admittedly I'm indifferent to), then you can just enjoy it for the jokes and the eye-candy.

That's it. That a complete review of 'Thor: Love and Thunder'. A movie that exists.