Reviews

When you think of Luhrmann, you think of Mulin Rouge and the Great Gatsby. This film in many ways follows the template of those excellent films. So where did this one miss the mark?

Firstly, Austin Butler provided an excellent performance. It was less Remi Malek as a wooden imitation of Freddie Mercury, where I struggled to see the character. It was far closer to Taron Edgerton in his brilliant portrayal as Elton John who lived and breathed the spirit of Elton in a stellar performance. In this Elvis film, you really got the feel of Elvis and how he influenced the people around him. Austin's performance was mostly superb and he (without doubt) held the film together. The scene where Priscilla left was one of the few mediocre scenes by Austin.

The film, however, was let down badly because Luhrmann couldn't decide if he wanted a factual account or a Hollywood revised "paint by numbers". Luhrmann put significant effort into Austin as Elvis and let all other primary and secondary characters (including Tom Hanks) play shallow roles that just didn't quite work. It's probably the worst Tom Hanks role i've seen. The charm and sleaziness didn't really come through particularly well.

Whilst less important, the film is fairly woke and kept on drawing me back to modern day with its segregationist, revisionist perspectives of the past. I genuinely didn't feel like I was watching the 50s at all. This almost felt like the Dewy Cox story (which is a parody and an excellent one at that). Luhrmann let himself down badly by confusing a biopic with woke politics. If this was fiction (Gatsby or Moulin Rouge), it wouldn't matter anywhere near as much. However, when you're covering a real person and dealing with more modern material, it does matter.

Huge plusses for Austin Butler and the costumes and the music.

Huge minuses for revisionist history and wokeness.

On the balance of things, it was a reasonable film. Had Luhrmann made the 50s portrayal a little more relatable and tried to portray characters more meaningfully (less Dewy Cox), this film could have easily been an 8. Segregation existed. Poverty existed. Alcoholism and violence existed. There's a fine line between art (revising) and telling (recounting) history. This film didn't quite get past Hollywood's wokeness. For a much better biopic, I recommend Elton John (Rocketman). Rocketman doesn't pull punches and it truly shows the highs and lows around Elton John. Tom Hanks was sufficiently integral and sufficiently weak that he let this film down more than I would like. Gary Oldman would have been a much better choice as that man can do nuance far more effectively than Hanks.

New Zealand has brilliant music bands, great actors, and some great productions. 7 Periods with Mr Gormsby is one of my favourite TV series: it's intelligent, hilarious, witty, and not afraid to pull punches. You see similar wit in Flight of the Concords.

Then you've got anything Taika Waititi. He is the opposite of everything I mentioned. Think of him as New Zealand's lowest common denominator. In the first 30 minutes, I counted one character in Thor: LaT that I liked (Stellan Skarsgard, who appeared for 10 seconds).

I say the following in all seriousness. If you are of reasonable intelligence, do not watch this film without some form of mind-altering substance. You will need something to dull the pain.

Generally speaking, I don't walk out through a film. I made an exception here. This was dreadful, not funny, and utterly low brow.

I scored 3/10 because I saw that the general production was reasonable. The story and acting was dreadful.

On the good side, this film is set across Asia. This gives the film an interesting vibe. The story is reasonably engaging.

However, what kills this movie for me is the behaviour of the characters. It's hard to explain how bad they are portrayed. Characters assert things that just don't make sense. They query each other in odd ways and to be honest, Hemsworth goes from petty criminal geek to near trained assassin. It's just silly.

Keeping it short. Bullock has lost the plot in recent years (including in real life). This is a somewhat return to form. Tatum was reasonable as the leading man. Pitt was solid. Radcliffe was ok but over the top.

The story is predictable, however, if you're in the mood for lightheartedness, there are some chuckles to be had.

Bullock kept her gender politics to a minimum but had to have her one moment. Fairly small whinge about the patricarchy.

Hollywood can't help itself these days. They embrace wokeness. It goes with the territory. Having said that, this is on the less offensive end of woke. They at least allow you to be invested in the characters. Characters are both good and not-so-good (which is RARE for Hollywood these days). I always applaud a film that allows female characters to be flawed because it's so extremely rare these days in Hollywood.

In short, it's an adrenaline filled movie. The action is good. The car chases do drag a little. However, there are enough twists and turns to keep the film interesting.

You can tell this was made after Season 1 of Spartacus: Blood and Sand. The acting is even better, the story writing is tighter and there's far less blood and sex and more focus on story.

Lucy Lawless and John Hannah steal this series. Their acting is excellent. I also enjoyed Manu Bennett, although I keep seeing Azog the defiler in his performance. The newest and best performance was also from Jaime Murray who was hard not to love.

Whilst this series still had blood and sex, they mostly toned it down and the show was better for it. I also actually enjoyed the fight scenes in this series: I did not enjoy the fights in Blood and Sand.

Well done to the creators. It's a shame they didn't get the balance right in Black Sails - which came after this.

I have not worked for Boeing. I can speak from significant relevant experience elsewhere and I can confidently say this is an excellent documentary that hit nearly every right note. If there's something missing from this documentary, it's the engineering authorities who signed off on the design. I'd also add that if the CEO contributed to the deaths of people, the CEO should have been prosecuted and if found guilty, imprisoned. This is fundamental as it ensures that accountability is maintained and reckless risks are not taken.

Humanity aims for higher heights by challenging boundaries and taking risks. The people challenging boundaries can be skilled people, incompetent people or corrupt people. You need money and skill to challenge these boundaries and Boeing appears to have been a financially weakened company that took risks to survive. It certainly had competency for a long time. The difficulty in restoring that competency should not be underestimated. The person restoring Boeing would have a significant task ahead of them.

Management select people for their compliance - that's a fact. However, if the management can be put behind bars as easily as the engineering authority who signs off on such a design ... then all leaders have the same risk and consequence to share. For some reason, this risk sharing did not appear to happen. The documentary did not say this and it should have.

The aircraft manufacturing industry is a safety critical industry, meaning that people's live(s) are at risk and the risk in aviation is extremely high. However, there is a MUCH bigger, recent problem across the entire aircraft manufacturing and broader aviation industry. The first problem is that the aircraft manufacturing industry is tightly coupled to government and the government place absolute constraints on the industry. I won't comment on the second problem ... but the problem is directly tied to legislation. Every time you hop on an aircraft, remember that the safety of the aircraft has been compromised by government legislation in the last decade or so. I personally consider this risk to be mind-blowingly huge.

If you're thinking about working in the aircraft manufacturing industry: I strongly recommend you think twice. Any industry that has such a high risk for its technical employees and the industry is subject to the whims of government that compromise safety ... that industry is best avoided. The industry has lost many good people in recent years because of these changes in legislation that occurred around a decade ago. The culture that has been created in the last decade or so is far more damaging than most people realise. I personally, consider it a ticking time-bomb. This particular problem straddles western countries and especially so in English speaking countries. It snowballed about a decade ago.

This documentary was excellent. The problem wasn't just the "single point of failure" on a safety critical system on the aircraft that should never have been allowed in the first place. The problem is always a series of failures that usually include intimidation and harassment of staff and a blatant disregard for safety. The common factor that allowed all of this was the lack of accountability for the CEO. Non-technical management focus on profits, however, they must have accountability equal to that of engineering authorities.

I recommend anyone who is game enough to go into the aircraft manufacturing industry, especially in engineering, manufacturing or quality assurance, should watch this video. I consider this documentary more beneficial than Mayday (also known as Air Crash Investigation) as it taps into the problem much more honestly and transparently.

Generally speaking, I can not fault this documentary. It appears to be matter of fact and well balanced. It hits almost every point.

Season 1 is a solid story about people. The writers focussed on understanding all sides in a conflict (although their criticism of corruption within the US was missing). The characters were interesting and relatable. I thoroughly liked the French female police officer - a woman of great character whose personality type is sorely missing in American films.

8/10

The second season is a big let down by comparison. The story is fragmented and gets hung up on people's identity (race/sex/sexuality) and gadgets. Rather than telling a human story about relatable characters, it leaps toward "woke" in a very disappointing way. The female presidential candidate Gloria Bonalde (Cristina Umaña) is a one-dimensional cardboard cutout who spends her time kissing babies and being virtuous beyond anything realistic. She's one of many such shallow characters. Good story has been sacrificed for identity politics. Some of the old likeable characters are back and there are a few good moments.

5/10

Mixed bag. To avoid disappointment, stop at the end of season 1.

Season 1: 5/10 You would think a show about piracy would be interesting, however, in this case, i'll make an exception. There are rare glimpses of potential.

The sets look decent. Some of the locations are gorgeous. The acting (on the whole) is not bad. However, the problem is that I really don't care about any of the characters. There's nothing likeable or redeemable about them.

So far, we have John Silver who is a conman who seems more like a boy than a man. We have Max who will do anything to get favour with anyone and she loves everyone. We have Eleanor who is a combination of assertive and fearful as she knows she can't maintain power because violence is such an integral part of this environment (at least this is interesting).

What lets season 1 down is that the characters feel like they're half woke and half historically based. Eleanor has a great scene where you think she'll go "Scarlett Johansson" using her one dimensional girl power - instead, Eleanor challenges the audience and her antagonist with wit rather than taking on a potentially dangerous adversary and ruining business.

This documentary could be summarised in 5 minutes without cutting corners. In short, they found little and didn't use a structured approach to their research. They had a town map showing (since) buried roads that would have helped them zone in on their objective. They chose to ignore this.

However, the real failure in this documentary is that the documentary obsesses over the main archaeologist, Pepi Papakosta. Usually, a documentary (such as an Attenborough) would focus on good narration, learning about the topic at hand, and beautiful scenes. In this documentary, we are told repeatedly about Pepi and her persistence and her team and her dig and her finds and her ... and her ... and her. I kept on forgetting what the documentary was about because there was such a focus on Pepi. They also talked a lot about water pumps.

Now if you're a fan of Pepi Papakosta, this will be a fascinating documentary as Pepi knows her Greek architecture and pottery. We find out that Pepi has an interesting hat and interesting shoes. Beyond that, there's a bit about Alexander the Great, although, you'd probably be better off watching Oliver Stone's (loosely based on history) film about Alexander if you wanted to learn anything.

Why is there such a focus on the archaeologist? It's a serious question.

Normally, such mediocre documentaries come from the History Channel. National Geographic documentaries aren't what they used to be. Save your time and give this a miss.

I thoroughly enjoyed the 1947 version of this film. Both versions have a lot in common. This version is a surprisingly faithful adaptation. There are no woke elements in this film.

Overall, I consider the performances to be solid. Cooper (Stanton Carlisle) was an excellent performance, as was Rooney Mara (Molly Cahill). To be honest, pretty much all of the cast were excellent. As I have lost most of my respect for Cate Blanchett, when I say she did a good job of bringing Lillith Ritter to life, I mean it. I also appreciate the high level of narcissism that Blanchett brought out in the role.

There are some graphically violent scenes in this film. There is minimal sex and nudity. I would recommend this film for people over 16 AND for those who appreciate slower paced character films.

A solid 7/10 for great sets, solid acting, and, especially for staying true to the original story.

I usually enjoy Adam McKay's films. This film is ok, but, misses too many marks.

McKay does a good job of characterising the media and (in general), US politics. However, McKay avoids the censorship angle that is rampant (eg. Social media) and McKay also plays a bit of identity politics (which is disappointing). In some ways, it's as if the New York Times was given carte blanche to "fact check" the script for a film.

Cate Blanchett was excellent and absolutely nailed her performance. Leonardo DiCaprio is mostly good, Jennifer Lawrence just didn't work - she was a definite miscast for that character.

The last hour of the film are almost certainly the best. The last 30 minutes sees the heroes and the general public swap places - which is exactly what I would expect to happen.

McKay should have played a few different angles and left others on the cutting room floor. In this regard, he did a much better job with Vice and The Big Short.

It's worth a watch - you can almost skip the first 40 minutes and not miss a thing.

Netflix struggle to make decent movies at the best of times. They have a habit of pushing politics rather than good story telling. This film tries to be more about story and less about politics, however, it struggles to do so.

This is a nice film. It has some great acting. It has some beautiful cinematography. What is struggles with is the heart. At many times, I felt as if the creators didn't believe in the message they were selling. Despite best efforts of the actors, they struggled to make this film work.

It's a nice film. If you have young children, they are very likely to enjoy themselves watching this. However, I would suggest that Netflix have a long way to go in making decent films for entertainment purposes. It's probably time they find a new leadership team for their film making.

It's wonderful to be able to watch a lighthearted family friendly movie without having politics rammed down your throat.

This is a decent film, suitable for families with younger children (probably around 10 or so) who want to watch something to do with Christmas that will keep the kids entertained.

This is worth watching at least once.

This film really shines in some ways. In the last few years, Hollywood has taken a turn for the worse and pushes a lot of politics in films. This film largely avoids the politics and mostly feels organic.

There's a lot to like about this film. The story is fun. The action scenes are exciting and the cinematography is consistently interesting. The mix of characters mostly works. You can switch off and enjoy this film for what it is.

Where this film narrows its target audience is that the humour is too juvenile and that a few of the performances are particularly wooden. The worst two performances are Harris (Frances Barrison) and Harrelson (Cletus Kasady). They are especially one-dimensional.

If you can look past a few mediocre performances (especially Harris, who is usually excellent as per her Pirates of the Caribbean role as Calypso) and roll with the juvenile humour, the rest of the film is plain good fun. It's great that you don't have to feel like you're being beaten over the head with shallow politics for once.

I would highly recommend this film to people in their early teens that like a bit of gore and profanity. The gore itself is quite tame but the concepts can be intimidating for quieter and more sensitive teens.

I would put this film in the "highly recommended" for certain younger audiences. Especially that it doesn't ram politics like most films do today. I would definitely recommend it.

This film is a nice film. I'd recommend it for anyone who can accept a dystopian society and the hope that can come from near hopelessness.

The story is reasonably sensible. The environments look good and there's sufficient pace that the story never gets too boring. You have an opportunity to understand Finch and his companions and the bond he has with each of them. You even understand why he turns to these companions instead of other humans.

If the story has one let down, it's the robot. Firstly, I know quite a bit about the logic behind computers and AI. The physical and logical behaviour of the robot makes no sense at all. I couldn't get past that this was a human that was digitally edited out of the film.

People have compared this to Castaway. Other than Tom Hanks, I saw very little similarity.

Worth a watch, probably not worth a repeat watch.

This film has good potential but misses the mark frequently.

The major criticisms are: some average acting (from all actors), linear plot, no connection to the characters, and a desire to push victim mentality throughout the film.

The film is clearly influenced by Blade Runner, however, I would say that it's quite different to Blade Runner as this film focuses mostly on characters rather than creating a detailed world. In theory, this should work, however, the dialogue is mostly exposition rather than giving you a sense of the characters. This isn't helped by average acting.

It's borderline as to whether or not it's worth watching. If I cared about any of the characters, it may be different.

This film is a more faithful adaption than the 2021 version. You gain a much better appreciation of the political factions and their motives.

By contrast, the new version has better acting and better effects, however, the story is more obtuse and twists some fundamental aspects of the book for "modern reasons". For example, the Bene Gesserit were based on Herbert's aunties who were Catholics. In order to avoid being too "Christian", the director changed the Bene Gesserit into something confusing and less clearly defined. I am not religious myself but this example shows how the new version became political rather than accurate. It's still a good film.

This one is worth the watch. Just look past the wooden acting and dated special effects.

Hopefully, IMDB will stop censoring my reviews for ideological reasons.

IMDB don't like any review that challenges their identity politics. It's about time they grew up and stopped censoring people they disagree with.

Dune is a gorgeous film and in many ways, the story remains true to the books. Having said that, Hollywood has add their woke filter to the film. This is disappointing.

Interestingly, the original story had cultural parallels that made sense (ie. It wasn't box ticking). Most of that has been retained in the film. In a way, Dune is a diversity of cultures and ideas. This is the opposite of today where diversity of ideas and cultures is shunned.

Positives. The film has mostly great acting. Even Rebecca Ferguson was mostly decent. Sharon-Duncan Brewster was a gender and race swap, however, she played the role surprisingly well (which is rare when the decision is political rather than talent based). Timothee Chalamet was solid in the lead role, as was Josh Brolin. Visual effects were superb, locations amazing, audio was outstanding.

Negatives. You really need to know the material to fully appreciate the story. It's a fine line between spoon feeding the audience and confusing the audience. Also, I found the performance of Zendaya as underwhelming.

I would be happy to let my teenage children watch this film. There is some violence and some depiction of pain. However, the most difficult aspect to appreciate involves the layers of story that can be difficult to follow and/or understand for younger viewers.

I would definitely recommend audiences watch this film. It plays down the sci-fi and focuses more on human nature (relationships and politics). I don't think any director could have done much better.

And IMDB, stop deleting my reviews just because you disagree with me.

I did not think it possible to rate a comedy as a 10/10. This film was a surprise.

What makes this so unique is that it is both absurd and serious at the same time. It cleverly walks the lines between. In an era where "woke" is as phony as you get, this film is the inoculation against insincere and shallow (woke) tropes. It lampoons other famous biopics (Ray Charles, Johnny Cash). Then, layers it with (mostly) great music and (mostly) great acting.

For a good laugh with hints of seriousness, you can't do much better than this film. I watched this film twice in a row (which I don't think I have ever done with any other film).

If you are "woke", you will strongly dislike this film. It pokes fun at insincerity and shallowness, which would be offensive.

There are also drug and sex references littered throughout the film. In most cases, they add realism and humour. The scenes with Darlene (Jenna Fischer) work particularly well, as do the scenes with Sam (Tim Meadows). Riley (as Dewy) mostly delivers superb lines. Wiig (Edith) is an underrated actress who had the most difficult role to play and should be recognised for her decent performance. For some reason, Wiig is not listed in the "top cost" on IMDB.

This is a movie made for audiences rather than aiming to score "virtue" points. This film absolutely deserves a 10/10, although "woke" audiences are likely to score it as a 1/10 because it will hit raw nerves.

Netflix as a company is mostly miss on their productions. This film is one of the few exceptions, it's a solid production.

Firstly, Netflix have avoided the woke - it's a well done.

Secondly, the story is quite interesting and well paced, although it occasionally jumps and you have to pay close attention.

Thirdly, the film is very violent at times and it's something I have never enjoyed about the Witcher series - the violence serves no purpose. If you compare this to Romper Stomper or Fight Club, you will appreciate what I mean. Both of those films revolve around violence with a purpose ... or even V for Vendetta.

I would not recommend this for sensitive younger viewers. I enjoyed it enough to watch it a few times.

The movie is generally fun. The characters are likeable but predictable. The story is simple enough. The acting is reasonable.

However, the movie never really shines. The main antagonist, Anton (Taika Watiti) is very badly acted, probably the worst performance I've seen from him (or anyone) in a long time. Now, I say that being a fan of New Zealand television. I'm used to New Zealand humour and I have watched a lot of Taika's work. This was just poorly done. I got what he was trying to be. It was more like a 1 dimensional sledge hammer than a character. He was the most NPC in the entire film.

For my tastes, a much better and somewhat similar film is "Boss Level". It's got the humour and the action and the game elements to it. However, I found myself being more impressed with the story and enjoying the characters more. For something with a bit more feels and kid friendly, probably Ready Player One.

If you are a big Ryan Reynolds fan and you want to see Ryan do Ryan again, this is your film. If you want warm and fuzzies without substance, this is a fun film. Just don't scratch too deeply. This film will be forgotten in 6 months. Worth a watch if you have nothing better to do.

This isn't a deep film, nor is it thought provoking. Instead, it's a fun, slightly naughty and quite honest depiction of life back in the 1980s, when having fun was the norm ... as was taking people as you found them.

Watching this for the first time in 2021 reminds me of how humourless we have become and how rigid we make our children, as if the hollow "moral superiority" of the last 10 years is genuine and beneficial.

I would recommend this film for any parent with children in their late teens, or anyone in their late teens who isn't woke. We should remind kids that it's ok to let your hair down and have fun. If you are politically correct, avoid this film at all costs as it involves kids having fun and having sexual encounters in reasonably genuine circumstances.

All round good acting. Amy Heckerling's excellent debut directing of a feature film.

This film reminds me very much of Lost in Translation. It's a story about a fish out of water, an American in France. It's a story about this man's potential for redemption and a new life.

This is definitely the sort of film you love or you hate. I always enjoy stories about people in difficult life situations who are trying to find their way. Having dealt with a family member who is always in trouble, I could relate to the characters in this story.

There were many excellent performances in this film. The story was solid. I even found the timing to be adequate (despite the film being as long as it was).

If you do not like character dramas, skip this film. If you didn't like Lost in Translation, skip this film.

I took 1 point away for starting down the identity politics path (which quickly disappeared as the story developed its groove in focusing on "people"). I think the film probably could have been a little shorter.

Definitely a solid 8/10 - almost a shock to see a movie like this in 2021. It wanted to play identity politics and I'm glad it didn't.

This isn't a deep movie. It's just a good, fun, action flick. Humour, action and an interesting story that largely makes sense.

Definitely recommended for a casual weekend.