Reviews

"Alive Actually" would have been a better title for this film as it is both a survival thriller in the vein of Alive and a love story à la Love Actually. It's a thriller/chick-flick – a strange mish-mash of genres that actually works.

Director Hany Abu-Assad brings us the story of two strangers (Ben, played by Idris Elba and Alex, played by Kate Winslet) who, after surviving a plane crash in the snow- covered Colorado Rockies must forge a connection to survive the extreme elements. When they realise help is not coming, they are forced to embark on a perilous journey across the wilderness while learning about themselves and each other along the way.

Based on a book by Charles Martin, this film fails to bring the realities of either aspect: survival and romance, to a satisfying conclusion. The romantic element is predictable and leaves no surprises. The survivalist aspects bring some suspense and wince-out- loud moments, there is never a feeling of dread or that they might not make it. What I found interesting, from a psychological aspect is how such an experience might draw to people together, akin to Stockholm Syndrome. Because the characters are very two-dimensional, I found myself trying to understand their motivation and what might draw them together other than a basic need to support each other. Both Kate and Idris give it everything they've got but the chemistry is not there.

The other thing that concerned me with the film was the sense of time. We are told that three weeks have gone by but it only feels like three days. Plus Kate's hair is perfectly curled every morning.

The only positive note in this tired trope-filled movie is that they did not eat the dog.

Wait for it to come on TV.

2 out of 5

Martin Campbell is no stranger to action films having brought us two Bond re-boots; Casino Royale with Daniel Craig from 2006 and Pierce Brosnan's first 007 outing, Goldeneye in 1995. The Foreigner is his latest action film and once again he is teamed up with Pierce Brosnan who is channelling his full Gerry Adams impersonation.

Jackie Chan plays an immigrant in London who owns his own restaurant. His wife and one of his two daughters were killed many years ago during the evacuation of Saigon. He lives with his only daughter who is tragically killed by an IRA bomb in London. He goes straight to the top of the IRA food-chain and intimidates Pierce Brosnan to give up the names of the bombers. What ensues is an explosive cat and mouse thriller between the two main protagonists played out against the back-drop of further IRA bomb violence in London from a rogue IRA cell.

This is where we need to say a word or two about the film's context and target audience. I watched this in a packed theatre in Silicon Valley, California. I dare say most if not all of the subtleties of the plot were lost on the audience. Indeed specific references to the Omagh bombing may not resonate with a global audience. The second problem is Jackie Chan. Audiences have come to know him as a lovable clown in most of his roles. There is nothing funny about his role in The Foreigner. It is played straight, yet the audience in my screening were laughing and giggling at what I believed were serious plot points and/or action sequences.

Campbell delivers a taught thriller full of Republican intrigue, back-stabbing and dare I say it "normal" Irish politics. The British government do not come out of this cleanly either. Their Machiavellian plotting and use of Brosnan's character is cold and devious. 

Jackie Chan brings us a subdued performance, befitting the grief he is experiencing. Brosnan brings us a fully-fledged Garry Adams which may be lost on some not familiar with the conflict or the politics of Northern Ireland. There is a strong Irish support cast including Orla Brady. 

Is it the best of Campbell's work, sadly no. It is not as tight or as tense as his earlier work, such as Casino Royale. It is, however a notch above some of the current offerings in the cinema. Pierce Brosnan's channeling of Gerry Adams is almost worth the price of admission alone.

3 out of 5.

A question I've been asked, given that Blade Runner 2049 is being released thirty-five years after 1982's Blade Runner, is; do I need to have seen the first film? I believe it will make a lot more sense, indeed it may only make sense, if you have seen the first film. The next question is; which version of the first film? Yes, there are seven. For me, and for Ridley Scott, it's The Final Cut version. So before we talk about the new film, trust me, it's complicated. Other preparations you need to make before viewing Blade Runner 2049 are: get a good night's sleep beforehand, use the bathroom and bring a flask and sandwiches. This film is 163 minutes long.

At the end of Blade Runner (depending on which version you watched), Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) rides off into the sunset with Rachel (Sean Young), a replicant he fell in love with after "retiring" Roy Batty and his mates. Director Denis Villeneuve's Blade Runner 2049 introduces us to a new Blade Runner named "K" (the name given to police personnel who hunt down and "retire" replicants), played by Ryan Gosling. K is despatched to the desert to retire a replicant farmer (Dave Bautista). While there he discovers the buried remains of Rachel and a new mystery is born. Along the way he encounters other replicants and eventually, his investigation leads him to Las Vegas where Rick Deckard has been living out his life. Together they embark on solving the mystery.

I'm being deliberately obtuse in my exposition because I don't want to give away the plot twists and turns and more importantly, the end.

There is a great support cast including Robin Wright who plays K's police chief and Cuban native Ana de Armas who plays K's holographic girlfriend in an emotive performance. Jared Leto turns up as Niander Wallace who has taken over replicant manufacture from the bankrupt Tyrell Corporation.

Blade Runner 2049 carries on in the same style as the 1982 film. From the cityscapes to the future it projects, the new film creates a believable 2049, darker and more miserable than 2019 (the time period the 1982 film was set). The sprawling metropolis, the single-colour palettes in the desert, the lighting through water and the framing give a real sense of  the dystopian future ahead. Kudos to cinematographer Roger Deakins. It also continues the central question of the 1982 film: what does it mean to be human? Are just the sum of our memories? Do humans have souls? There is a lot going on. To it's credit, Blade Runner 20149 does not pander to the audience. It assumes they are smart and can deal with these topics without being spoon fed. There is no long exposition to explain the plot. There are twists and turns and Villeneuve knows the audience are intelligent to keep up.

Seeing Harrison Ford back in action is a joy. He throws himself back into the role he played 35 years ago with gusto and the film is better for it. He clearly has an affection for the character of Rick Deckard who is probably the most enigmatic character he has ever played. For his part, Ryan Gosling makes an excellent addition to the story line as the new Blade Runner. His expressionless face captures the lack of empathy with which he retires replicants. As the film progresses we see a tender side of him with his girlfriend and his struggling to make sense of dreams from his childhood. His closing scenes, with echoes of The Shining are touching.

As a continuation to the 1982 film, Blade Runner 2049 takes the story forward in a thought-provoking fashion while leaving some of the unanswered questions from the 1982 film still unanswered. For example, there was great debate at the end of Blade Runner as to whether Deckard was a replicant himself. Don't be expecting this film to answer that. If you truly want the answer to that, you will need to read Philip K Dick's short story: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? We know they dream of unicorns!

An amazing 4.5 out of 5. This intoxicating film will need several viewings and each will be as brain-twisting and as welcome as the first. I look forward to the next instalment. Hopefully we won't have to wait 35 years!

It's 2017 and Star Trek returns to the "small" screen. It's true that when Messrs. Kirk, Spock and McCoy jumped onboard the wagon train to the stars in 1966, most screens were small. Today, not so much, which brings me to the highlight of the newest Trek incarnation; ST:Discovery – it looks gorgeous on today's HDTV screens.

With a history (or is that a future?) spanning centuries, where do we find ourselves for the latest incarnation? Ten years before Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise, the USS Discovery discovers new worlds and lifeforms as one Starfleet officer learns to understand all things alien.

In the interests of full disclosure, I have been and always shall be a committed fan of Star Trek. I will watch it in all of its incarnations from the original series right up to Jar Jar Abrams' reboots. There is not a single episode or film I've not seen….many times. For this review of ST:Discovery I have seen the first two episodes of Season One: The Vulcan Hello and Battle at the Binary Stars.

Let's talk about all the good stuff. Firstly, it's Trek and its on the TV. Secondly we have an amazing cast including Michelle Yeoh, Jason Isaacs, Sonequa Martin-Green and Doug Jones. In terms of casting, we have one of the finest collection of actors one could hope to assemble. Thirdly is the look. The production values are extremely high and every dollar is up on the screen. It's a pity they did not spend more dollars on the wooden dialogue. Oops, did I say that out loud?

All of this brings me to the long list of things that, as a fan, bugged me. I fully understand that if you are new to Trek and Discovery is your first outing, then not much of what I say next will make sense. Why say it then? – I hear you cry. Well, because ST:Discovery sits in a linear timeline of previous Trek incarnations. We are told that this series is set ten years before Kirk and Spock and yet the USS Shenzhou has technology that they did not have. We are told by the captain of the Shenzhou that it is an "older ship". When Starfleet arrives to save the day, not one starship was a Constitution class ship, which we know were in existence. According to Trek canon, Capt Robert April was commanding the USS Enterprise at the same time as the events in these first two episodes. Am I nit-picking?

The Klingons, let's talk about the Klingons. I have tried to get over the new look but I can't. It makes no sense whatsoever. Again, ten years from the events in Discovery, Kirk will meet Klingons and they look nothing like the Discovery Klingons. One hundred years from Discovery, Klingons will be serving aboard the USS Enterprise-D and they look nothing like the Discovery Klingons. What gives? How can a race of people evolve so quickly and so differently. I can forgive Kirk's Klingons as the TV budgets of the 1960s did not permit the prosthetics we have come to expect. Discovery's Klingons not only looked wrong, they behaved wrong too. How come, given how far Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine explored Klingon history and culture, have we never heard of coffin-ships before?

And what's this? Spock has a half-sister we never knew about? The half-brother Sybok was bad enough in Star Trek V. Just how many waifs and strays did Sarek take in? And was it even necessary to have the first officer a ward of Sarek? It did nothing to move the story along other than provide an anchor into Trek lore.

I'm sorry, I have to go back to the technology and the starships. Kirk never had holographic communications with Admirals. He never had a Ready Room off the bridge. He never had a 180 degree panoramic viewscreen. His phaser rifles looked archaic compared to what we saw on the USS Shenzhou. The ship's computer, well what can I say? It seems more intelligent than Kirk's and able to perform more functions. The first-officer's ethical/logical discussion with the computer was a nice wink to Kirk's ability to outwit computers though.

Trek has always been about the characters. The most successful incarnations have focused more on the characters than the stories. For the first two episodes of Discovery the focus was on the tech. Character development was patchy. The Klingons were better fleshed-out than the Starfleet crew. The dialogue was clunky and the wooden performances from Starfleet's finest will hopefully improve as the actors settle into their characters. In terms of story, what was missing for me was allegory. Trek's best episodes have been allegorical. The first two episodes of Discovery were more Star Wars than Star Trek.

Will I watch more episodes? Yes I will. Will it sit comfortably into Trek canon? Probably not.

Based on the first two episodes, it's a disappointing 2 out of 5.

Here's a film you don't see every day.

Darren Aronofsky, who famously directed Black Swan, has brought us another mind- twisting, psychological work of horror. Or is it? Maybe it's a thriller? Maybe it's a film about mental breakdown? I do know mother! will stubbornly refuse to be categorised and will divide audiences: some will be lost and some will see it as an allegory. What starts off as an idyll turns into suspense, then an overwhelming barrage of the senses followed by despair.

The opening scene features a house recovering from a devastating fire until the camera settles on the form of Jennifer Lawrence who wakes up to find her partner, Javier Bardem missing from the bed. We learn later he is a poet. As he struggles with lack of inspiration, Lawrence sets about refurbishing their house, which is evidently a passion of hers. She feels a connection to the house and in a series of never- explained sequences, appears to experience the literal beating heart of the house. The exact nature of their relationship is never fully revealed until the end of the film. Their life is interrupted by the arrival of Ed Harris and subsequently Michelle Pfeiffer (in a delicious, over the top, Cruella deVille performance).

It is at this point one notices the lack of names in the film. From beginning to end, no one's name is mentioned. This adds to the unnerving and eventually de-humanising aspects of the story. This is a conscious decision by the writer and director and it works on a subconscious level, much as Kubrick's set for the Overlook Hotel sought to confuse viewers of The Shining.

Harris and Pfeiffer (who are apparent fans of the poet) are invited to stay in the house, at the behest of Bardem and to the dismay of Lawrence. The tension starts to build as the invited guests start to take Lawrence and the house for granted. Lawrence tries to get them to leave without success. Things take a turn when Harris and Pfeiffer's sons arrive to argue over their parents will. The brothers, played by real-life brothers Domhnall and Brian Gleeson proceed to fight and tragedy ensues. The film continues to descend into an assault on the senses, almost to the point of farce but it never quite crosses that line. Instead it infused me with a bewilderment and a dread of cults. Act Three is difficult to watch as it turns in to a house of horrors, a real Grand Guignol.

Throughout, Matthew Libatique's camera focuses on Lawrence's face, rarely leaving it, suggesting we are seeing things from her perspective. Unusually for Lawrence, normally used to empowering roles in her films, we see her helpless and despairing. Bardem remains a mystery to us, right up to the final frame of the film. Harris, Pfeiffer and the Gleesons are all spot on. Hats off to casting team.

This is not a timid film. There is subtext built upon subtext. You will not see anything like this in cinemas today and I guess for some time to come and for that, it is welcome.

4 out of 5.

As they say here in the US, in the interest of full disclosure, I really like Marvel's TV series Daredevil, Jessica Jones and Luke Cage. I did not like Iron Fist; more on that later.

In order to catch up with the DC universe on TV which enjoyed huge success with Smallville, Arrow, Supergirl, Legends of Tomorrow and The Flash, Marvel launched their counter-assault in 2015 with the well-received DareDevil starring Charlie Cox. It was an unusual casting as Cox does not have the physicality that Ben Affleck brought to his version of the role in 2003. But it was clear from the start that Marvel intended to focus on character development, character interaction, relationships, motivation and good story-telling. The superhero was not perfect. He wrestled his own demons and doubts. It worked and DareDevil, with Cox was a hit. They repeated the formula later that same year with Krysten Ritter as Jessica Jones. It picked up Peabody and Emmy Awards. Knowing they were onto a good thing, Marvel gave us Luke Cage in 2016 with Mike Colter as the titular hero. The theme of reluctant superhero dealing with their past and wrestling with their demons was repeated and Colter won over legions of fans. It seemed that Marvel could do no wrong with TV versions of their superheroes.

Earlier this year, Marvel introduced us to Iron Fist, starring Finn Jones to less than stellar reviews. For this reviewer, it was a mess. Poor scripts, under-developed characters, unclear motivation and the weary trope of a billionaire turned vigilante combined to make this the weakest of the four series and their first mis-step.

This brings us to The Defenders, which sees all four heroes working together á la The Avengers to save New York from Sigourney Weaver. It's all over the place. The story, such as it is, follows Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage and Iron Fist: a quartet of singular heroes with one common goal – to save New York City. This is the story of four solitary figures, burdened with their own personal challenges, who realize (sic) they just might be stronger when teamed together.

To this reviewer, it looked like they started filming without a finished script. The story took several sharp turns that left the viewer wondering what was going on. Cox, Ritter and Colter are the best thing in this. Their developed characters and obvious acting talent generated goodwill and a desire for The Defenders to be more than it turned out to be. Iron-Fist remains the weakest link.

One of the highlights was seeing the return of the excellent Elodie Young as Elektra.

Sigourney Weaver was the central villain and for the first time I cringed in every scene she was present. Her performance was poor and what was it with those outfits?

I went into The Defenders with a lot of goodwill for three of the main characters and actors. They were handed a poor script and terrible dialogue. Cox, Ritter and Colter have a screen chemistry that will make me want to revisit The Defenders for Season Two. For now though, Season One is for fans only and even then it should be approached with caution.

2.5 out of 5

I watched my wife, Ciara, cry her way through Jeanette Walls' New York Times best- selling biography, The Glass Castle. I initially dismissed the book as chick-lit but was sufficiently intrigued by the trailer to want to see this movie. To be honest it was less the trailer and more the realisation that Brie Larson and Woody Harrelson were the stars. I'm fans of both actors and was curious. I'm glad I was.

The story is that of a young girl who comes of age in a dysfunctional family of nonconformist nomads with a mother (Naomi Watts) who's an eccentric artist and an alcoholic father (Harrelson) who stirs their children's imagination with hope as a distraction to their poverty. The focus of this hope is the titular glass castle, which is a folly.

I came to this film not knowing it was a biography and it was only during the end credits, where the real-life characters are shown, that I realised the events I had been watching was true. In a cinema schedule of comic book adaptations, re-telling of old tales, sequels and prequels, The Glass Castle is a refreshing piece of work. It joins this summer's stand-out mainstream films: Dunkirk, Baby Driver and Detroit as unique creations.

At times painful and uplifting, the film is replete with well-developed characters and a story that draws one in. We feel the pain, the anguish, the hope, the heart-break, the cruelty, the despair and the love present in this family. The story is told from the perspective of the author, Jeanette (Brie Larson) in flashbacks to her childhood from where she is today, engaged to a successful New York financier. Larson is spot on. Her portrayal captures the conflict she experiences and the dyadic love/hate relationship she has with her father. Harrelson will surely get an Oscar nomination for the life he breathes into the father. He is both villain and hero in his children's eyes.

This is family life, a slice of a particular family's life. The story-telling, the acting are all top-notch. I have read some indifferent reviews. For me the film is worth a second viewing, if only to dig deeper into the layers of the characters and their shared story.

Directed by Destin Daniel Cretton who also directed the critically acclaimed Short Term 12, this is a fine addition to his resumé and marks him out as a director to keep an eye on.

Definitely worth a look. Bring tissues.

3.5 out of 5.

Time magazine described Kathryn Bigelow's 2008 film, The Hurt Locker as a "near perfect film". It's hard to disagree as it went on to win six Oscars including Best Picture and Best Screenplay for Mark Boal. Bigelow and Boal went on to collaborate again for 2012's Zero Dark Thirty, again receiving critical acclaim and one Oscar. So it was with excitement and goodwill that I went to see Detroit to see if the dynamic duo of Bigelow and Boal could work their magic again.

I was not disappointed. Detroit is a superb piece of story-telling with incredible editing by William Goldberg who picked up the Best Editing Oscar for 2012's Argo. One often forgets how an editor can influence a film; it's feel, look, pacing, etc. We know Goldberg is no stranger to action, tense editing plus the interweaving of actuality in to his editing. For Detroit, he scores again. Forgive me for focusing on editing, but for me, it was one of the successes of the film and should not be underestimated or under-appreciated. This is a strong contender for another Oscar for Goldberg.

Based on actual events and people, the film tells the story of how a police raid on an after-hours party in Detroit in 1967 resulted in one of the largest race riots in United States history. The story is centred around the Algiers Motel incident, which occurred on July 25, 1967, during the racially charged 12th Street Riot. It involves the death of three black men and the brutal beatings of nine other people: seven black men and two white women. Fro the initial police raid through the build-up of the riots and the looting, to the actual events at the Algiers motel, to the subsequent charging and trial of three police officers, their acquittal and the after effects on the lives of the key characters, this is a troy that needed to be told. It is painful, nay difficult to watch in places. Bigelow does not shy away from putting the heart-wrenching, visceral brutality and naked racism right in front of our faces.

John Boyega, keen to shed any hint of Star Wars typecasting, gives a powerful, if muted performance as a local security guard who gets embroiled in the events at the Algiers Motel. He goes from advocate to helpless bystander and ultimate patsy, upon whom the Detroit police try to place the blame for the murders carried out by their own officers. It is a measured performance and identifies him as a singular acting talent of a new generation.

Anthony Mackie also gives a stand-out performance. Known for playing Falcon in the Marvel films: Avengers, Capt America: Civil War, etc. I had placed him in a box of competent but not an actor of note or substance. I was wrong. His performance here is worthy of a supporting actor nod at next year's Oscars.

English actor, Will Poulter plays the villain of the film, if there is such a thing in a city so demonstrably racist. Poulter's unhinged performance is magnificent as he unashamedly displays his racist attitudes, through his brutality and subjugation of the victims in the Algiers Motel, right up to his realisation he may have over-stepped the mark and his subsequent attempts at cover-up is the locus of the film. Poulter carries it off and Bigelow's close-ups of him as he displays his bigotry are breathtaking.

I could write a lot more about this film: it's cast and crew, the plot, the pacing, the moral but I will, uncharacteristically, leave it there except to say that it is a difficult film to watch, but necessary. In these sexist, misogynistic, racist, Trumpian times, films like this deserve to be shown to everyone, nay everyone should be made watch and feel uncomfortable.

A staggering film. 4.5 out of 5. My highest rating so far this year.

Atomic Blonde is James Bond and Mission: Impossible for the 21st century and instead of Messrs Craig and Cruise we have Charlize Theron, a female spy. It's ironic then that this post-feminist adventure is set in the late 1980s around the fall of the Berlin wall.

An undercover MI6 agent (Theron) is sent to Berlin during the Cold War to investigate the murder of a fellow agent and recover a missing list of double agents. Her contact in Berlin is the city's station chief (played by James McEvoy). John Goodman and Toby Jones round out the cast as a CIA chief and an MI6 spy-master respectively. The story features the usual plot twists and turns as the double-agent is eventually revealed.

The script could have been lifted straight from any number of spy movies however it is presented with a style and panache that brings new life to a jaded trope. The use of classic 1980s songs, with particular use of German synth-pop, bridges the gap between nostalgia and this 21st century update.

The fact that director David Leith, who brought us V for Vendetta and the Bourne Ultimatum, made me curious to see how he dealt with this story based on the graphic novel series "The Coldest City". Leith is accomplished in this action genre. He continues his ability to bring tense, action-filled scenes to life with gritty realism, this time with 6" red stiletto heels.

Theron is believable as the action hero and delivers a sexy yet cruel performance. She is clearly enjoying herself. McEvoy is her equal and he too is revelling in the role of spy. There are sexy scenes, action sequences and dramatic car chases - necessary elements of the spy genre.

We have seen worse.

3 out of 5

After Dawn and Rise we arrive at War of the Planet of the Apes or WOTPOTA for short!

I have to admit, I was ambivalent about this third installment of the Apes trilogy. It's billed as the final however there are enough unresolved issues at the end to probably warrant a fourth. Cornelius's story anyone?

WOTPOTA is directed by Matt Reeves who I first came across in the 2010 US adaption Let me in. It was a poor Americanisation of an excellent film by Thomas Alfredson called Let The Right One In. If you have never seen the 2009 original, I urge you to check it out. Not expecting much from Matt Reeves I was very pleasantly surprised by WOTPOTA.

Andy Serkis once again elevates the art of motion-capture performances to a new height. He again plays Caesar, the leader of the apes, a little older now and with familial responsibilities, including a young son named Cornelius. Woody Harrelson plays the main protagonist simply known as "The Colonel".

So let me address "the war". If you saw the trailer and were expecting a Battle for Helm's Deep encounter between humans and apes, then you will be disappointed, sorely disappointed.  I think this accounts for some of the poor reviews this film is getting. For me it is not deserved. The title "war" is a misnomer. There is no war and there is no victor. What we get is an introspection as Caesar struggles to overcome his hate and his thirst for violence. Without spoilers, the scene is set early on as to why Caesar hates the Colonel. What follows is a physical and emotional journey with images of concentration camps and brutality. The apes crucified on x-shaped crosses has echoes of the markers used to deter apes from entering The Forbidden Zone from the original 1968 Planet of the Apes film with Charlton Heston and Roddy McDowell.

Steve Zahn plays an ape who calls himself "Bad Ape". He is the other stand-out performer in the film. He initially provides some expositions but rapidly becomes the comic relief in what is a grim film. It is a welcome relief with many old gags rolled out including using binoculars the wrong way around!

Woody Harrelson plays an army colonel hell-bent on wiping out the apes. We are told (in an unresolved plot point) that the other human armies disagree with him, resulting in the final action sequence in ActIII. Harrelson's end is sign-posted along the way as we are told about the change in the original simian flu and how it now affects humans. THe introduction of Amiah Miller as Nova (played by Linda Harrison in the 1968 original) leaves more threads open for a fourth film in this reboot series.

All in all WOTPOTA exceeded my expectations. The motion capture performances and the CGI are simply breath-taking, transporting you in to a fully realised, believable world. I liked Dawn, was so-so on Rise. This third episode is the best of the trilogy. If they continue at this standard I welcome the fourth.

A solid 4 out of 5.

First off, it's great to be able to write a review and not be afraid of spoilers. Unless you have never opened a history book in your life, most will know how the story ends. The tag-line for Dunkirk is "the event that shaped our world". I'd like to think of it as "the film that changed cinema - again!" Too bold a claim? Read on.

My first introduction to Christopher Nolan's work was 2000's Memento which also introduced Guy Pearce to the big screen as he leapt from Ramsey Street in Neighbours (playing Mike Young for four years) to Hollywood. Memento is a film that had an instant impact on me. At the time I was not sure what I had just seen and it is a film I return to at least once a year and find something fresh in it.

The Noughties say Nolan immersed in the DC world with Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises. 2010 saw Nolan revisiting his fascination with time and our perception of time in Inception. It played with our perceptions of reality, time, asking what is it to dream, what is it to be awake and are we a dream within a dream, borrowing an idea from Edgar Allen Poe.

Fast forward to 2017 and we arrive at Dunkirk. Before I discuss the plot or the performance, let's talk technical. Nolan filmed Dunkirk in IMAX with an aspect ratio of 1:1 and that is how one should view this film if possible. Not all of us can access an IMAX theatre. I saw it projected in 1.666:1 in my local multiplex so I feel I lost some of the visual, visceral aspects that the director intended. Getting an IMAX camera into the cockpit of a Submarine Spitfire could not have been an easy feat! Despite the technical wizardry on display, Nolan manages to tell a series of personal stories using vignettes.

Dunkirk is a sombre film. This is no celebration of life. Nolan tells the story of the evacuation of 400,000 service men from the beaches of Dunkirk, France in WWII by pleasure craft from the south coast of the UK. We get the perspective of the Spitfire pilot, the service men on the ground, the Admiral in charge of the investigation. Yet amongst all of these personal stories there is tragedy. We see the desperation of the men trying to get home and sneaking onto ships. We see the despair of a serviceman take off his helmet and rifle and walking into the sea while his comrades sit and watch, each as helpless as the other.

It is a huge credit to Nolan that while he paints this enormous palette of images, he can focus tightly on the smallest aspect of humanity.

Nolan also revisits his favourite topic of time. Dunkirk, while being told through vignettes, splits up the story-telling into one hour, one day and one week. He then proceeds to rearrange the sequence of events into a non-linear act of story-telling. This has huge echoes of Memento and Inception and at this stage is almost a trademark of Nolan's. Personally, I think the style will divide audiences who prefer linear story-telling. However Nolan firmly believes that audiences are smart enough to figure it out on their own. They don't need reams of exposition to understand what is happening. I respect Nolan for that. To be honest I was almost half-way through the film before I noted the time-leaps he was making, back and forth. It is a style that allows him to tell the same story from multiple perspectives. I love it!

Nolan has assembled a stellar cast including Kenneth Branagh, Tom Hardy, Mark Rylance, Cillian Murphy, relative new-comer Fionn Whitehead, not to mention One Direction's Harry Styles as Alex.  Most characters only get first names and some get none. Cillian Murphy is "the Shivering Soldier" - it doesn't get more stripped-back than that. All performances are excellent. Character development is pretty much non- existent. It is not needed as motivation is obvious.

Let's talk about the soundtrack, provided by Hans Zimmer. He has provided the soundtrack for a good many Nolan films with Dunkirk their latest collaboration. Zimmer's syncopated style provides a stunning addition to Nolan's story-telling. There is not a note out of place. This is what soundtracks should be. Is Dunkirk the greatest film of the 21st century, probably not but Hans Zimmer's score certainly is. A masterpiece.

I was left wanting more and wanting to see it again in IMAX. My recommendation is to go see it on the biggest, loudest screen you can find. Size matters. So too does the sound system.

For me, it's a 4.5 out of 5 - almost perfection.

It's been a while since a trailer threw me completely. The intent of a trailer is to entice the viewer in to seeing the film, to tickle your curiosity. The trailer for The Book of Henry did this admirably. Like a magician's sleight of hand, it provided misdirection too. Having seen the film, I left thinking that that was not what the trailer implied. Hats off to  editor, Kevin Stitt.

The plot synopsis on IMDb.com, written by the distributors, Focus Features lays out the plot without spoilers:

Sometimes things are not always what they seem, especially in the small suburban town where the Carpenter family lives. Single suburban mother Susan Carpenter (played by Naoimi Watts) works as a waitress at a diner, alongside feisty family friend Sheila (Sarah Silverman). Her younger son Peter (Jacob Tremblay, who we last saw in Room) is a playful 8-year-old. Taking care of everyone and everything in his own unique way is Susan's older son Henry (Jaden Lieberher), age 11. Protector to his adoring younger brother and tireless supporter of his often self-doubting mother - and, through investments, of the family as a whole - Henry blazes through the days like a comet. Susan discovers that the family next door, which includes Henry's kind classmate Christina, has a dangerous secret - and that Henry has devised a surprising plan to help. As his brainstormed rescue plan for Christina takes shape in thrilling ways, Susan finds herself at the centre of it.

This is Colin Trevorrow's second feature and he has crafted a warm, charming, sometimes despair-filled film that ultimately brings a message of hope. Good triumphs over evil in the end, as it should in most films.  

Critics have been very harsh in their reviews. Some decry being emotionally manipulated! Is that not the whole point of going to see a film? Audience reactions are more favourable.

My reaction? I cried. Twice.

A very enjoyable and competent film: 3.5 out of 5

So here we go. Detective Comics first modern-day take on a classic superhero character: Wonder Woman. For those of us of a certain vintage, the phrase "Wonder Woman" conjures up images of Lynda Carter saving 1970's America in her star- spangled costume and satin tights. For teenage boys everywhere she was Wonder Woman made flesh.

DC Comics have ventured into solo female superhero movie territory before with poor results. We had 1984's ill-conceived Supergirl with Helen Slater and 2004's critically- panned CatWoman with Halle Berry. Even Marvel, who can do no wrong these days have had their fair share of solo female super-hero disasters: Elektra anyone? And so DC, having faced critical and fan-based scorn for 2016's Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice and Suicide Squad, dip their toe into the superhero waters once more. To say there is a lot riding on the success of Wonder Woman is a truism. It's the next test for DC and it's in a genre with a poor track record: single female superhero movies.

Director Patty Jenkins has an excellent track record with 2003's Monster being one of my stand-out favourites. It also has the honour of earning Charlize Theron her first Oscar (Best Actress in a Leading Role). So we know Jenkins can tell a story. As with all origin superhero films, we have to have the back-story together with an "it's all up there on the screen" action sequence in Act III. Israel's Gal Gadot appeared as Wonder Woman in last year's Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice. Her performance in that was one of the stand-out moments of an otherwise dull movie. So hopes are high that she can carry a feature-length movie on her own. The good news is that she can. Supporting her and providing the love interest is Capt. Kirk himself, Chris Pine as Major Steve Trevor.

In terms of story we have the obligatory origin-story. We discover that before she was Wonder Woman, she was Diana, princess of the Amazons, raised on a sheltered island paradise and trained to be an unconquerable warrior. The island has been hidden from the world by Zeus but when a pilot crashes on the island's shores and tells of a massive conflict raging in the outside world, Diana leaves her home, convinced she can stop the threat. All of this happens in Act I and we get performances from Robin Wright as her trainer. We are also introduced to one of the villains of the piece, Ludendorf played with scenery-chewing aplomb by Danny Huston.

In Act II our heroine is brought to London, to the heart of the Allied war effort. IN this Pygmaleon-esque sequence we see Diana being introduced to society. Most of the film's humour resides in this Act and it is a delight. Gal Gadot shows her acting chops and comic timing and proves a good foil for Chris Pine. Lucy Davis shines as the female role-adviser and hapless carrier of the sword! Diana and Steve decide to go to "the front" and try to stop the development or release of a new German weapon. More comedy ensues as they recruit the team they need.

Once we get to the front, the tone changes. We witness through Diana's eyes and her experiences, the true horror of war: not just on the soldiers but on the towns and families caught up in the war. In typical hero's-journey pacing, it is a real road of trials for Wonder Woman. Her experiences, her apotheosis in Act II set up our hero for the final showdown in Act III. As is required by modern-superhero story-telling, there is an epic final battle. That's where we leave the narrative for fear of spoilers.

This film's strength is in it's heart and Jenkins has proved herself a master of telling stories that resonate with audiences. She never allows the film to lose that heart and it is a better movie for it. It's not without it's flaws. In particular, Act I, on the island is scattered and at times disorientating. A minor quibble in an otherwise good origin story.

Gal Gadot is simply outstanding. Her range in this film shows she is capable of more. She is slated to reprise Wonder Woman in DC's Justice League due later this year. For now, as Princess of the Amazonians, she rules all before her.

A solid 4 out of 5

So, just who are the monks? Why did they want? What did they want with our obedience? We have never seen a  more "motivation-less" villain in Doctor Who than these Monks. Granted they have been filmed brilliantly but their raison d'etre was never revealed. Ho hum.

The Lie of the Land brought the monk's trilogy to a conclusion and it was a tepid conclusion. Love conquers all apparently, including the monks. I don't want to give the ending away. Suffice to say, the Doctor and Bill prevail. Of course they do. They have to return next week.

The episode started out showing how the monks had taken over the world and replaced the history of the planet with their history. We had an Orwellian squad of "Memory Police" patrolling the streets and painting a view of a dystopian society. Comparisons to 1984 aside, it was well crafted and brought genuine terror to the story. With a nod to a necessary six-month recovery for Nardol due to exposure to last week's toxin, he and Bill plot to rescue the Doctor (Peter Capaldi) from the clutches of the monks. In a lengthy speech the Doctor extols the virtues of the monks and how they have saved humanity from themselves. It's a sinister, snarky speech aimed at Bill (Pearl Mackie). It is totally over the top.

Bill's reaction is over the top too and ill-timed. Without spoiling it for those who may not have seen it, what she does is uncharacteristic, needless and utterly pointless other then to trigger a fake regeneration of the Doctor. A more dramatically ill-judged moment of Who is difficult to recall.

I'm glad the monks are gone. I hope they never reappear in Whovian lore. While filmed brilliantly with a sinister speech pattern, they ultimately proved as useless as an older generation dalek faced with a flight of stairs.

Next week we see an old enemy return. The Empress of Mars brings back the Ice Warriors since Matt Smith met them in 2013.

Welcome to the Apple, Facebook, Google mash-up movie!

So, at the outset and in the interest of full disclosure, I am an employee of Google – so there, I have some experience of The Circle and some of its premises.

The plot: when Mae (Emma Watson) is hired to work for the world's largest and most powerful tech and social media company, – the titular Circle. She sees it as an opportunity of a lifetime. As she rises through the ranks, she is encouraged by the company's founder, Eamon Bailey (Tom Hanks), to engage in a groundbreaking experiment that pushes the boundaries of privacy, ethics and ultimately her personal freedom. Her participation in the experiment, and every decision she makes begin to affect the lives and future of her friends, family and that of humanity. One of The Circle's other founders, Ty (John Boyega) is unhappy with the direction the company is taking and ropes in Mae to help expose the shenanigans.

Director James Ponsoldt co-wrote the screenplay with Dave Eggers. The film is being marketed as a thriller. Em, it's not. This is the least suspenseful thriller since thrillers were first made. The Circle is marketed as keeping you on the edge of your seat. Well, it doesn't.

Emma Watson brings youthful energy to her performance but even she doesn't break a suspenseful sweat. For the first time ever, Tom Hanks is pretty poor in a movie, just short of dialling in his performance. John Boyega is disappointing. This is Tom Hanks second time filming a Dave Eggers screenplay; last year's disappointing A Hologram for the King.

Of note, among the cast is the late Bill Paxton. He plays Mae's father who suffers from MS. It is his last big screen outing and it's a shame that this is it. Kindly, the film is dedicated to him.

As far as this film is concerned; to borrow a quote from the late Bill…

"It's game over man, game over!

A very disappointing 2 out of 5 – to be avoided.

IMDb.com classifies this 2016 film as a comedy/drama. Well there are one or two laughs but they are of the nervous variety. The focus here is on drama. A struggling comedy writer, played by Jesse Plemons is fresh off a breakup and in the midst of the worst year of his life. He returns to Sacramento, to the bosom of his family to care for his dying mother, Molly Shannon in an outstanding performance.

Train's "Drops of Jupiter" features several times during the movie; the lyrics of which deal with someone dying. Lead singer Patrick Monahan has stated that the song was inspired by his late mother, who had died after a struggle with cancer. It is apt.

Other People is writer Chris Kelly's first big screen outing as director. He is also currently an Emmy-nominated Co-Head Writer at "Saturday Night Live". Other People debuted at the Sundance Film Festival in 2016. Molly Shannon won Best Supporting Female at the 2017 Film Independent Spirit Awards while Jesse Plemons was nominated for Best Male Lead; Chris Kelly for Best First Screenplay and all deservedly so.

Above all this is a human drama. Multi-layered, the story is about the illness and death of the family's mother from cancer. It also deals with the father's reaction and his lack of acceptance of his son being gay. To borrow a line from Captain Kirk in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan – "how we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life"

Have the tissues ready.

A solid 4 out of 5.

You are now entering a spoiler-free zone; well as much as a spoiler-free zone as possible given that this is an Alien movie and we all know how they usually end.

So Alien: Covenant is the second of Ridley Scott's Alien-prequel series. I'm not giving anything away by saying that the end of this one lays the basis for the next one. Reports suggest there may be four prequels. We have been threatened with worse. I refer to James Cameron's plans for four more Avatar sequels!

If you have not seen the first prequel, Prometheus you need to see it before seeing Alien: Covenant. That is a must. You will be lost otherwise. Even if this is your very first time to see an Alien film, please see at least one other first.

Once you have seen Alien or Aliens, then the B-story of this film will make sense. In fact the last act is almost a beat for beat copy of either of these two. We'll come back to the A-story later.

1979's Alien was the first outing for Ridley Scott with the creature. It had a very strong script and featured the famous mess-hall scene with the wonderful John Hurt and our first look at the chest-burster as it was known then. It was a straight-forward horror story set in space, complete with jump-out-of-your-seat moments. Seven years later James Cameron brought us Aliens which changed gears and gave us, what was essentially, a war movie. It was a different take utilising the same villain. Both stand alone and both are memorable. This writer has watched both movies many times. Let's forget Aliens 3 and 4 and the various Aliens vs Predator rip-offs.

Enough history, what of this latest movie. Let's start with the plot. There are no less than six writers involved in developing the story and crafting the screenplay. When you have half-a-dozen writers involved it usually shows and this film is no exception. The writing is all over the place and when one character exclaims "I don't know what's going on" you can feel the cinema-going audience, to a person, empathise.

The B-story has the crew of the colony ship Covenant, bound for a remote planet on the far side of the galaxy, discovering a signal from another planet on route to their destination. The signal is a broken but identifiable as "Take me home country roads". This intrigues our intrepid crew who decide to investigate. One can almost hear the audience shouting "don't do it!" but they do and discover what they think is an uncharted paradise, but is actually a dark, dangerous world. When they uncover a threat beyond their imagination, they must attempt a harrowing escape. Enough said – you get the gist.

The A-story continues Scott's preoccupation with faith, human origins and our destiny as a species. Prometheus started this examination but was slow and plodding not to mention confusing and with an ending that made no sense. We get more of the same here only it's not shoved in your face as much as the first prequel.

The crew are instantly forgettable. Yes we have a woman in a vest shooting at a monster which again, is a step too far in trying to recreate the Ellen Ripley character – without success. The ship, the Covenant is too shiny and there is the odd JJ Abrams lens flare on the bridge. Our alien movies need to be grimy!

The film is receiving widespread criticism. I understand why. The A-storey is, well boring at this stage. The B-storey is not satisfying and the twists at the end are so well sign-posted that it takes away from the ending.

I went in with very low expectations and was surprised.

3 out of 5

So set your expectations to "low"

Whenever I hear or read the title of this film, It Comes At Night, I immediately think of Newt from Aliens: "they mostly come at night, mostly". HR Giger's creations are infinitely scarier and more entertaining than this rambling nonsense written and directed by Trey Edward Shults. 

This is Shults' sophomore feature outing. He won acclaim for his debut feature Krisha in 2015 which promised great things to come from this new screen-writer and director. Sadly It Comes At Night is not it. Billed and advertised as a horror movie, full credit has to go to whomever edited the trailer which sold this as something scarier than it is. In reality, an encounter with the Daleks is scarier.

The story focuses on a family holed up in a house in the woods, hiding from an external threat which we later find out is a plague of sorts. It's not a zombie plague, which would have been a major misstep, it's more of the boil and pestilence kind. They encounter a young family one night when the father breaks into the house. Both families decide to live together and make a go of survival. Tensions rise. Paranoia increases and things don't go too well. The film dribbles towards an ending.

Joel Edgerton plays Paul, the patriarch of the house, married to Sarah (Carmen Ejogo, who we last saw in the excellent Selma) and they have a son Travis (Kelvin Harrison Jr) who wanders about the film in a perpetual catatonic state. Christopher Abbott is the father of the second family and is married to Kim (Riley Keough). They have a three year old son, Andrew. Roles and motivations are simple. Back-stories are scant. Futures look bleak.

Act I has Family No. 1 living in their house in the woods, burying their father/grandfather and eking out an existence until they meet Family No. 2. Act II has both families learning to live and work together and protect each other but never quite trusting each other. Act III see the paranoia set in and they decide to part company with devastating results. An episode of The Walking Dead is better written, has more tension, scares and drama than this.

There is nothing to see here. Move along.

1 out of 5