Reviews

The young man is an astounding screen presence. Thompson needs no introduction or praises from me at this stage of her brilliant career.

But why? Oh why?

What were they all thinking? A woman in a long boring conventional marriage who's never pleasured herself? Yeah, pull the other one!

What a self conscious, unrealistic, unnatural script! What a positively bonkers premise, that sexual fulfilment is to be had by way of a commercial transaction with a "sex worker" ( this has to be one of the most glorious misnomers for any paid work that the genius of the English language is capable of creating!)! And what an even more positively bonkers additional premise that some emotional attachment will be derived for both participants in said transaction!

Interesting that the body language of both betrays an obvious awkwardness and unease that belie the supposed cleverness of the script. They're both clumsy as and unnatural all the way through to the much vaunted "climax"!

Authenticity? Where?

Reverse the sexes and you have a "me too" scenario lurking in the subtext. All the talk about no one exploiting anyone, all the "public service" suggestions, all the supposed breaking through boundaries etc result in one big fat icky mess of a movie.

I tuned out mentally and emotionally at about 20 minutes into it but watched it to the bitter end to try and be fair in expressing an opinion. You can't have an opinion on something you've not actually seen.

Despite my truckloads of goodwill towards the two actors and to cinema as a powerful medium of story telling I still feel the ick days later.

If this astoundingly moving film had been made by some conceited continental auteur the critics would have fallen over themselves to fawn over it. But it's only Sam Mendes and the non descript ordinary folks of the southern UK depicted here so it's ok to underrate it.

FHS! This film packs an aesthetic and emotional wallop most auteurs can only have wet dreams about.

It's authentic, it's narratively and dramatically perfectly calibrated, it looks absolutely gorgeous from the point of view of cinematography despite it being mainly filmed in indoor settings. It's calm and measured and eschews unnecessary cinematic flourishes for their own sake that scream out: look at me, I'm directing a movie!

Indeed the main mise en scene, a cinema theatre itself from the time before digital tech displaced the place if cinema theatres in our lives, is a brilliantly conceived and executed metaphor for the movie itself and for the movie experience in general.

The editing, script and acting are top notch. Olivia Colman is an absolute one woman juggernaut of a cinematic presence. I've just seen her in The Favourite the other day too and I'm just gobsmacked at the range, nuance, emotional punch etc this actress just tosses off as naturally and as unforcedly as breathing. She is just in a class of her own, elevating whatever she's in to off the scale performing heights. I cannot get enough of her.

The supporting cast is great too, with Toby Jones in particular holding his own opposite the great Colman.

A brilliant gem of a film, infinitely satisfying viewing.

Stunning little gem from Aussie cinematic genius. Let the critics babble on about genre and material and blah blah blah...are they really so unable to just try and actually see what's going on on the screen?

And what does go on is plenty...it's deep, it's complex, it's puzzling, it's terrifying...because it rings so psychologically true of familial relationships and dynamics.

A story of sibling rivalry in childhood leading to trauma and guilt now resurfaces in the adult life of one of the siblings who's now a mother to her own daughter, leading to violent and abusive "mothering" because such levels of trauma and guilt cannot really be overcome.

A grandmother. A mum. A sister. A daughter. All these "identities" flow and merge into and clash with each other. Female familial bonds are put under the microscope by the film and are found not only wanting but verging on the criminal. Little girls made of sugar and spice? Not in the vision of this filmmaker.

A stunningly brave take on the "feminine" by a woman director. A painful delving into the capacity of the "feminine" for emotional and physical destruction and mayhem. Forget the Hallmark card cliche sentiment of sweetness and nurturing. The females depicted here are anything but.

Highly atmospheric and visually stunning in its simple and spare cinematography. The famed Aussie sunny blue skies make no appearance here. It's cloudy and windy and grey weather outdoors and muted dark interiors inside. The darkness of the mise en scene an expression of the darkness in the souls of the "heroines".

A couple of images of promisingly beautiful dawns never materialise into sunny days.

The acting is superb. Not just Sarah Snook as the main perpetrator of the mayhem but everyone else as well. The young girl playing the daughter is a revelation.

Spare editing, great pace. Pretty mesmerising till the last frame. And anyone who misses the central metaphor about who the daughter actually is has missed the entire premise of the movie. Maybe watch it again.

Can't believe all the self-important hectoring "critics" and killjoys who have berated this glorious escapist cinematic caper.

It's a kind of emotional disability not to say intellectual hypocrisy to expect things of any movie that it never intended to deliver and to badmouth it for it. It amounts to saying to the director "you shouldn't have made this movie, you should have a different one"! Just what the?

Love lost count of how many times I've immersed my self in this beautifully calibrated pure cinematic entertainment of a movie. Everytime things get me down I go watch it and feel instantly healed and .U high spirits restored.

Yes, it's got glorious visual impact, it has the likes of Bill Pullman, Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum doing absolutely fabulous turns as ordinary folks rising to genuine heroics when the occasion calls for it, not to mention the great Judd Hirsch in a great character role.

No character development? Says who?

The nastiest predator aliens are trying to exterminate humanity, our heroes save humanity with wit and abundant humour, and this is insufficient character development? What exactly do these critics not get? Are they pining for some arthouse movie talking heads then? Or dime woke ID PC BS to bore us to death? Angels and ministers of grace, defend us from such cinematic pretentiousness.

It's a glorious adventure, full of positive vibes and love of humanity. From a director who knows better than to consider himself an "auteur". A director who does his best with humility and respect towards the art of cinema as entertainment and the audience as people with integrity.

The director's cut is the best. Brilliant cinematic fare, Mr Emmerich! Thank you.

Some Netflix productions are putting old Hollywood to shame. The mini series format is a brilliant solution to stories too large for a single movie to contain but not so large that they need endless seasons, or an upteenth number of sequels and prequels that get progressively repetitive and meaningless.

This is the most brilliant thing about Bodies: over the eight episodes it weaves a tapestry of four parallel interlocking stories into one exceptionally tight, cohesive and finely calibrated narrative and dramatic whole.

The mix of genres is bold and hugely entertaining. The production values, period settings and cinematography are stunning. The music score and script are excellent. The acting is superb.

But the greatest achievement of the series is the editing and pace: not a scene out of place or superfluous, not a subplot left hanging, no narrative excess or unfinished business.

By episode eight everything over the past seven episodes falls into place narratively and dramatically and does so in an utterly satisfying way.

Inventive, original and bold. And it has all the cinematic and technical skills to do those attributes full justice. Bravo all round.

What a gem! Genre busting alright, but trope busting too. The widowed dad who's not really a hunk but sexy as because of a gigantic personality. The difficult child who's not a brat but sweet and accepting of the foibles of the adults around her and learns to go with the flow. And the sweet young woman who helps others with their secrets in her advice column who has the mother of all secrets herself.

Unpredictable twists and turns, a finely calibrated balance of the comic and serious, fast pace and great editing, awesome musical score, and acting all round to die for. Hugely metaphorical but spot on in relation to themes of love and loss, family drama, identity, adults feeling lost, acceptance of the other, and yet it's low key and incredible fun, not hectoring and shoving PC in the viewer's face.

Binge watched it on Stan, absolutely riveting, and the resolution at the end of season 2 both unexpected and yet totally in sync and in cohesion with the entire series. Best resolution since Midnight Mass in terms of dramatic and narrative logic.

Aussie quirky excellence at its best. Please, please, please let there be a few more seasons!

What's up with the critics? Attention deficit disorder or mental laziness? "Doesn't fulfil its promise"? What does that even mean? And if you claim this then spell out what the promise is and how it doesn't get fulfilled! Clever turns of phrase left hanging are not criticism worth listening to.

I enjoyed the movie immensely.

Classic noir tropes beautifully revitalised and updated. Sharp, crisp script. Taut editing. Yeah, slow paced but not slow, not a single superfluous scene. Cinematography to die for! Music score super appropriate and effective.

But above all it's a masterclass in character acting. Benicio is utterly mesmerising and Alicia sizzles. The chemistry between them is off the scale and their shared scenes are superb.

Ditto Justin. He's developed into a great actor lately. And all the other actors do a superlative job right across.

One can find flaws in God's creation. Man is a flawed creature and therefore no movie can be perfect. To let any minor flaws become major criticism over the abundance of excellence in the movie is both bad manners and intellectual dishonesty.

See it for yourself. Netflix, please do more stuff with Benicio and Alicia together. A super winning screen "couple" oozing screen presence and acting charisma. Well done all.

This isn't about sports glory or gold medals. It's not about glibly glorifying and deifying sports "heroes", a notion that's so puerile anyway. It's a gritty depiction of the complexities of family life, the hurt and the glory of familial relationships and love.

So easy to mistake this as a "typical" Aussie sporting legend. Except that sport is a mere background to the human trials and tribulations, simply a metaphor to underpin the way the characters manage to overcome their "loved ones" and themselves and break through to the other side of survival.

Absolutely brilliant work on every front. No scenes of glorious swimming pools and beaches bathed in the strong Aussie sun, but 3 am training starts in the dark, where a growing boy is fighting to breathe caught between the pressure his well meaning mother and coach are exerting on him and the memories he has of an abusive father.

The young boy is late for training one day and the coach makes him wait till everyone else has finished by which time he does his turn in the pool in pouring rain. A scene that epitomises the struggle and darkness that the protagonist and to an extent the rest of the characters must overcome to survive their situations.

Outstanding dark hued cinematography, outstanding editing restraint (not a frame that's superfluous and doesn't advance the story and characterisation), outstanding direction to get the most nuanced emotional responses from the actors, outstanding, utterly believable scripting.

A masterclass in quiet cinematic achievement that leaves the viewer with lasting impressions.

The critics are all wrong. Maybe because it was the early noughties and "me too" was still over the horizon.

The prison visuals are superb. Is there really a different between a prison cell and a psych ward cell? The darkness and flickering lights and industrial steel fully establish the spooky atmosphere. Who says this movie's not really scary? The depiction of this prison physical reality is far more terrifying than any fantasy CGI spookiness one can imagine.

But never mind questions of genre and is it really a thriller, a horror movie, a psycho movie etc? A movie can be cross genre. It's whether it works cinematically that counts.

And this movie does work. Astounding that no critic i've read even mentions the gender premise underpinning the themes.

Three women, two alive and one from the grave work together to expose and defeat the powerful patriarchy who have been abusing, torturing and killing them.

A top woman psychiatrist? Nah, we can't have that, she must be cut down to size.

A woman patient to be believed when she talks about being raped? Never! After all she's crazy! And ghosts? Are there such things?

But you can't keep a determined chick down, and when there's three working together, well, patriarchy run for your life!

Brilliant unassuming movie establishing its themes through effective visuals and dramatic action without preaching and hissing.

I invite all critics to watch it one more time!

You can tell the critics haven't really paid attention or left their preconceptions at the door when they all sound the same: falls short, doesn't fulfil its promise, great acting/cinematography/visuals but...and then they proceed to not argue in full how and why.

Yes, Florence Pugh is superb. I didn't like her much at the start of her career but I'm glad to have been proven wrong. She has developed into a spectacular screen presence with charisma and depth, putting on nuanced performances and so does she here. She is mesmerising in this role.

There are layers in this movie resonating with deep perception and emotion that the critics seem to have missed. Being squeezed against the wall to the point of being crushed by the window pane you are cleaning daily? Wrapping your head in cling wrap as you cover food on platters till you suffocate? Crushing eggs you fry endlessly every morning for breakfast to find they're just empty shells? Etc etc etc. These are incredibly inventive and powerful images of the domestic drudgery suffocating the lives of mainly women that consist relentlessly of these daily activities.

This movie is very strong in letting the image tell the story. Since when is cinema not a primarily visual medium that needs to fulfil promises? What promises would those be apart or separately from the visual language on the screen?

The visual contrast between the beauty and elegance of the mise en scene in the first two acts with the darkness and ugliness (indeed horror) of the third act alone completely fulfils the narrative, thematic and dramatic premises of the movie.

Wilde's direction is confident and astute. Yes, the movie shows some influences from the genre but is there any art that is the result of some immaculate imaginative conception?

If this were a movie by some male "auteur", say a Christopher Nolan, the critics would have fallen over themselves to translate any flaws into virtues.

The collective female domestic and marital lived experience that infuses the voice of this movie (directing, scripting etc) is authentic and true to the daily lives lived by billions of women the world over. And yet this voice is neither shrill nor preachy but cinematically authentic: the image is the message.

Kudos to everyone and especially to Ms Pugh and Ms Wilde.

Eminently rewatchable.

The bad faith critics and the surly churlish "fans" are all completely wrong. They're all acting out of spite or cinematic illiteracy or both. Or maybe they think it's cool being cynical...but cynicism requires evidence in order to be effective, and the vast majority of reviews rating this film very low present no evidence other than emotional puerile dummy spits: "not what I expected", "my least favourite in the franchise"...blah blah!

No movie exists to meet preconceptions and expectations: expectations based on what? What a dishonest way to approach movies or indeed any form of art. See the jolly thing. Pay attention. Then by all means dislike it if you will but give reasons based on the movie's own terms not your prejudices.

J W Dominion is a delight. It's an ode to the original and to the first sequel, a homage, a respectful love song. The number of scenes that are set up to echo now classic scenes in those two films are plentiful, especially in the third act, and they are done expertly, sensitively, with huge attention to camera work and the cinematic language of the original films. And yet they feel fresh. They're hugely enjoyable and we watch them with a knowing smile and recognition.

I doubt everyone involved thought they were making an original. But they have made an authentic and not cynical attempt to tie together the threads of the franchise: 1. Having the oldies meet the newbies and working together is a superb statement on generational cooperation for the good of all; it's not a cynical money grabbing thing, but casting that works to meet the film's themes. Not that a bit of nostalgia is necessarily a bad thing, anyway.

2. John Hammond's quest for redemption actually comes about with BD Wong's character (Henry) finally using genetic technology for good: the locusts are destroyed and there's the promise of using such tech to cure human diseases; the surviving animals are finally left to their own devices in a protected "park".

3. T Rex rules in the end, as we had hoped. And it's the bad guys who meet their just desserts here. The dilophosaurus scene in the hyper loop is brilliant. Dodgson had it coming since the first movie! Yes! I've still not forgiven Mr Spielberg for killing Eddie in the second film.

4. The movie is also a master class in the current obsession with DEI...Even in the first movie, Samuel Jackson and BD Wing had crucial roles but their "diversity" was not shoved in our faces. They were people with the requisite skills doing a job. Their diversity was NOT the issue. Same here: huge amount of sex, race, age etc diversity, and none of it is done for its own sake.

I could go on but enough. Will I watch the film again? You bet! Far far more rewatchable than the previous two in this part of the franchise.

Well done, Mr Trevorrow and all cast and crew. This one is gonna become a cult classic in time. Just loved it.

Some critics make me laugh or cry: an unexpectedly good job by JLo, they write. Why unexpectedly? Because your preconceptions and prejudices have been smashed?

Yes, some scripting and editing and plotting and characterisations could have been better. But Jennifer Lopez puts in a smouldering performance that's more than enough to make this film satisfying viewing.

In fact I found her low key unforced acting combined with the cinematography of snowy landscapes and trying to rough it in the wild (for reasons I won't reveal cos it'd be a spoiler) utterly beautiful and visually and narratively effective. Great cinematic quality here that makes the movie's flaws recede into the background.

JLo may be a diva, a singer and dancer, but that doesn't mean she can't act. She is nuanced and convincing here as she is in most of her film work. She's a better character actress than Streep and Blanchett combined. They're one trick ponies; JLo is multitalented and a naturally great screen presence.

The young girl is also fantastic in her role. Poignant, layered, natural. A delightful performance.

It's like some critics are afraid to say they like JLo's work for fear they might be thought of as lowbrow.

Excellent work, Ms Lopez. Keep it up for those of us who delight in the full range of your talents.

A quiet stunner of a film. The grimness of the darkly lit cinematography is a brilliant cinematic signal of the moral darkness of the human affairs it depicts.

We all kinda knew that behemoth corporations put profit before people, not abstract people but real hurting people on the ground like the farmer who initiates the complaint against du Pont.

The farmer keeping the sick organs and mutations of his dead cows in foil as evidence of du Pont's work is the scariest thing I've ever seen on the screen. Ditto his cow cemetery. Scary because it's only too real. Far more powerful stuff than all the glamour of Erin Brockovich.

Ruffalo is brilliant as the dogged lawyer not willing to give up on revealing the horrible truth. Not a glamorous romantic hero of the moment figure, but an ordinary man, with ordinary problems himself who still finds the courage to persist.

Also loved Hathaway's work. As the wife she doesn't have nearly as much screen time but her relatively short scenes are very powerful. Again it's the reality of the depiction: a wife running a family with an almost absent husband due to the long hours he must put in doing that kind of investigative lawyering. And voicing her frustration, of course. Yet no one is so proud and morally supportive of her husband. It's real, it's complex, it's convincing: that's how real life is...full of ambiguity and shades of grey.

Tim Robbins and Victor Garber are also great in their supporting roles as the law firm boss and du Pont sleazebag respectively. Great character acting both!

Loved this flick. Thanx Netflix. Low key but real, gritty, ambiguous, complex depiction of a humongously important social and moral issue and the "system" that creates such issues. Far more effective than glamorised screen heroics.

WOW! More than 30 years later this episode remains among a handful of episodes at the summit of the best ever ST of all series and films, indeed of all SciFi on film.

Simplicity and integrity in a script that focuses on an authentic real life issue: we often understand each other's words but not necessarily each other's meaning.

The episode presents a race who conceptualises their life experience and expresses it solely via metaphor. The entire episode is thus a cinematic metaphor for the nature of human cognition, language and communication.

Deanna tells Data that a single word misspoken or misunderstood can result in tragedy, while Picard down on the planet with the alien captain absolutely outdoes himself trying to NOT misunderstand what the alien is saying.

It's not just words but patience, integrity, compassion -all the good Starfleet qualities Picard exemplifies- that are also necessary for communication.

A sweet but sad resolution is achieved, making this episode a paradigmatic example of high concept SciFi done with integrity, not just mindless endless whiz-bang CGIs.

The exploration of the role of mythology in a culture's life of the mind is beautifully done: Picard trying to narrate the tale of Gilgamesh and Enkidu to the alien has to be one of the ten best science fiction cinematic scenes anywhere anytime.

Absolutely brilliant episode all round, simplicity and integrity and good taste at their best.

Endlessly re-watchable.

Everything here is a slap in Marilyn's face, her memory and all the people who've ever taken her seriously as a person and artist. And I'm one of the latter.

Yes, de Armas does a humongously brave job but so what? The whole thing is a mess dramatically, narratively and in every way a piece of cinema can go wrong.

The interchanging of colour and B&W and screen ratio formats is irritating and not as clever as it seems. It serves no storytelling purpose in the film, and indeed the whole thing fails dismally to tell any story at all.

Why do a remake in order to diminish its subject rather than enhance it? Poppy Montgomery's version was a much more positive and respectful tribute to Marilyn.

This film fails to delve into any of the complexities of Marilyn's life and career. It's a peeping tom fest on all the Hollywood sleaze we're all so aware of and of which we need no reminders. It's utterly monotonous and harps on one single cord for an interminable amount of time: Marilyn the victim of powerful men. Seriously? She became the legend she was just by being that?

I was tempted repeatedly to stop watching but I stuck it out out of respect for Marilyn.

Despite de Armas' brave work, she's totally miscast. She has absolutely no physical resemblance to Marilyn, it's not her fault she has Latino features which are impossible to disguise. Thus, the extraordinary amount of make-up required to even approximate the look results in a drag queen look that's quite dispiriting to watch, if not an insult to Marilyn. Some profile close up shots have entirely the wrong silhouette, chin, lips, nose etc in completely different proportions to any images of Marilyn's face. And the eyes: they were dark brown in most scenes! Just what the?

And Joyce Carol Oates should have known better than to try to "fictionalize" Marilyn's life. Marilyn's life was larger and vaster and more authentic than any fiction. It all starts from that: the overreach of assorted "artists", writers and film makers to think they can improve on a legend.

Enough, then! Let it rest, Hollywood, and let the unique presence that was Marilyn RIP.

Astoundingly moving film. Characters so fully fledged and nuanced they ring true to life.

All the tech aspects are beautifully balanced: narrative, editing, cinematography, pacing etc.

But it's the three women in the centre of the story that put in such brilliant performances, one is mesmerised from beginning to end.

Page is their (her) usual smouldering endearing misfit self, Janney is her usual impeccably pitched mature woman self, but I was truly astounded by Blanchard, whom I've not seen much before this, I have to admit. She has by far the most difficult role of the three, the airhead with self esteem issues, a role that could have so easily descended into cliche pathos, were it not for her scintillating low key realistic turn. An "ugly" character whom we probably end up loving most of all, so sympathetic is Blanchard's turn in it.

And the Bub. I don't know what they did to have such a young "actor" have such affinity for Page's character. It's as if Bub is only happy and settled when on or near Page's character. As if she instinctively senses that the misfit is the only one with genuine unconditional love for her. Brilliant support to the whole dramatic and narrative aspects.

Well done all round. Smouldering endearing most satisfying gem of a movie.

Gobsmacking, sizzling, scintillating cinema.

There are actors, there are movie stars and then there are cinematic supernovas: two together on the same screen in every frame here, Dane De Haan and Robert Pattinson absolutely kill it in Life.

Enormous screen presence and superb acting the both of them, they do more than honor the two historical persons they portray: they create brilliantly nuanced, realistic, convincing characters capturing the essence of these persons.

What a plethora of meaningless reviews here on IMDB!

"De Haan doesn't look like James Dean, it spoils the movie!" Seriously folks? Is that what "biopics" are supposed to do? Mimic in a literal way the looks and mannerisms of the subject and forget about getting to their human essence and character?

You're looking at what's on the screen but you're not seeing what's really there: the flaws, the doubts, the conflictedness, the messiness of being human. Pattinson and de Haan create level upon level of all this in their work here, rendering Stock and Dean as the authentic humans they were, not merely the romanticized figures of pop mythology. Their acting is low key, slow, a mere facial expression conveying oodles of emotional depth.

They're aided in this by a brilliantly natural script, witty, self deprecating, ringing utterly true in its colloquial tone.

Above all, what viewers have missed is that this movie is a homage to the photographic image. And the director, having been a photographer in his previous work knows exactly what he's doing.

He's recreating the classic images from Life magazine, he's photographing the photographer, and every single frame is exquisitely composed as a stand alone still photograph.

The Indiana scenes in particular, both inside the family home and outside in the snowed under landscape are paradigmatic instances of how to use every square millimetre of the screen without crowding it with clutter. Absolutely superbly balanced cinematic images alone making it worthwhile watching the movie.

Ok you get the point, I loved it, I enjoyed it, I found respect for the historical persons depicted, I saw elements of homage to the photographic image. All beautifully exemplifying the duality of the title "Life".

Outstanding cinema, can't wait to rewatch soon.

OK, 10 stars are just not enough for a film so off the scale as this.

The ending was such a slap in the face cinematically speaking, I will never ever assume I know what I'm watching until the end of a film next time around.

Nah, I'm not spoiling it, just suffice it to say that I rewatched it immediately to make sure I hadn't misunderstood.

And then the whole thing fell into place, every Sci Fi trope I had recognized while watching ending up upturned on its head.

And all this achieved with obviously a modest budget, but with special effects, editing and acting all top notch. The power of less is more.

And the characters as warm as a kitten purring in your lap. Incredibly convincing characters, real, flawed and full of living warmth. Making the ending all the more gobsmacking.

Fantastic job all round, hugely watchable and impactful cinema. Bravo!

I sussed out who was in it from the start (no spoilers) but then watching whodunnits is almost never about who done it.

It's about atmosphere and acting: in these two departments the film, though dated, is very effective. The acting is particularly excellent with the cast of stars assembled, with Simmons and Agutter absolutely stealing every scene they're in. And Ward is pretty much off the scale.

Some particularly impressive atmospherics involving gravestones and exhumations communicating the terror felt increasingly by the male protagonist very well.

But the pace (editing) is so slow, it puts a bit of a spanner into the whole works.

I adore Jean Simmons and Jenny Agutter, and don't mind Cliff Robertson's masculinity hogging the screen.

But it's Simon Ward here who is the most successful piece of casting for the role. He has a unique facial structure, the eyes naturally conveying depths of hidden emotion and thought, and a sense of disdain for everything and everyone around him, and here they are deployed with deadly effect in the role.

Not the greatest thriller, but definitely worth a look for the performances alone.

Thanks Tubi for extending your range of classic offerings constantly.

I watched attentively and faithfully. I wanted to honour everyone's work, I approach all cinema in that spirit of goodwill.

My attempts to make sense of it all were, alas, cynically thwarted.

The film is inadvertently comical, or should I say right down ludicrous.

The the script full of hilarious malapropisms, literal renderings from Swedish breaking every idiomatic norm of English. Even allowing for the outlandish plot, no spoilers, the dialogue is stilted, unnatural, awkward.

The cinematography is childish,the last act with the girls wearing garish plastic flower headdresses worse than a grade three school pageant.

There is no psychological character development or contextualization, they exist in an abstract universe that's just voodoo, literally, so full of mumbo jumbo is the "story" of celebrating mid summer, the title so pretentiously spelled in Swedish.

The acting is ordinary as. The much vaunted Ms Pugh has no range even allowing for her struggling with a terrible script. As for all the weirdos in white, nah, sorry, they mouth nonsense voodoo which makes a mockery of cultural traditions and celebrations around the world of solstices and other annual celestial milestones.

The ending is sheer forced "dramatic resolution". It's slapped on cos the film has to end, and not a moment too soon.

I could spot none of the alleged "dread" that the film is supposed to have and so many critics have raved about. That might have been the intention, but the execution just doesn't make it happen. It's hard to find dread among all the inadvertent comedy.

Incoherent and self-conscious, irredeemably pretentious and vacuous.

What an episode!

Rewatching the series on Tubi and am amazed at how incredibly well it has stood the test of time. Still fresh, still addictively enjoyable, still packing a punch as a paradigmatic thriller whodunnit.

Many great episodes and this one is right up there with the very best, not only in Midsomer Murders but in the genre as a whole.

A complex unflagging episode with all the subplots resolved brilliantly by the end.

Brilliantly acted by everyone, Capaldi and Nettles putting in extraordinarily charismatic performances.

Drama and comedy beautifully balanced, in that low key killer nuanced style the Brits excel at.

Just a brilliant example of the genre all round, worthy of rewatching more than once.

Bravo to all involved, thanx to Tubi for making it so readily available.

What a travesty on every front!

Amadeus was a classic because it started with Schaefer's PLAY. It was a theatrical original, an absolute smash, before the collection of geniuses who made it into cinema history came together: Hulce, Murray, etc on the actor front, and the super director Milos Foreman. All of whom respected the essence of Mozart the child prodigy genius and the essence of his music and never lost sight that that's where the impact lay.

Immortal Beloved is a cynical attempt to cash in on the Amadeus formula but its cynicism is its downfall.

Extremely significant that the playwright and the director were NOT the same person for Amadeus. Almost every film I've watched where the director was also the writer has tended to be a disaster. There's a reason why these two functions should be separate: they act as checks and balances for each other. Unless you happen to be a Kurosawa, a Kubrick, a Coppola.

I don't remember the name of the perpetrator of this sorry project, and I don't particularly want to.

Amadeus was a dramatization with a human conflict story as its primary driver, and the inherent tragedy of a man who recognises someone else's musical genius and by comparison his own mediocrity.

Immortal Beloved is a lame biopic with no conflict worthy of the name, a plodding mish mash of linear and flashback narrative methods,and despite the glorious music, Thanx Ludwig and no credit for it to any of the perpetrators here, it trivialises the greatest composer of all time and surrounds his character with dimwits and losers. It's completely and utterly incomprehensible that anyone, and I mean anyone, could fall in love with that simpering wishy washy Italian girl near the beginning of the film.

The reveal of who the Immortal Beloved actually was is beyond laughable. That's what happens when you don't simply dramatise historical events for their essence but totally invent them. No, just bloody no. No way!

Great horrible pity for Gary Oldman who puts in an exquisite performance as Ludwig, morphing into the character seamlessly, particularly in body language. He IS Ludwig. He is mesmerising. Unfortunately it's not enough to save this enterprise. How he didn't walk out of the whole business is a mystery but perhaps testament to his sheer professionalism.

All my five stars are for him and him alone.

PS The fetish for casting continentals who don't speak English as a native or communicative language in English language films just because some productions are internationally funded is another death knell. Some are just passable, some mangle the pronunciation, inflections and prosody of English so badly, they're incomprehensible. An accent is one thing, spitting cotton is quite another. Seriously people!

No, not adult as in "adult" but for cinematic adults. To wit, those who do not bring to their viewing a truckload of expectations baggage but are open to meeting a new offering with an unclouded judgement and some good will.

It's not "slow", it's paced without the frenetic stroke inducing mindless CGIs of so much "Sci-fi". It has time to build atmosphere, themes and character nuance through the action. Which is the purest form of cinema of all.

Some "critic" made me ROTFL when they suggested there's insufficient character build up at the beginning: LOL, exposition and voiceover narration: the death knell of cinematic quality.

Want those? Sure, go read Dickens, Tolstoy, and watch Scorsese. The best cinema doesn't work that way. If you can't work out the characters from what they do and say and their facial expressions and body language, you're not really seeing what's on the screen.

I worked out the different personalities involved virtually in the opening "teaser". Knowing where they literally came from and what their life was before this mission is cinematically irrelevant.

Comparisons to Squid Game are seriously misguided. Puerile. Just because it's Korean doesn't mean it's gonna be the same stuff all over. Two entirely different genres, indeed each is cutting edge in its daring genre busting efforts.

Worst thing U can do is go watch something with preconceptions of what it should be. What an insult to everyone involved!

Netflix can often present real clunkers, but it saves its reputation overall with much quality viewing as well.

So viewer: divest yourself of your cinematic cliches and watch this without fear or favour.

It's not perfect, nothing human can be so. But the greatest part of this series is thoughtful, thought provoking, satisfying adult viewing that respects the viewer's intelligence and dispenses with popular tricks.

Ten for overall quality. Well done again, Netflix.

What a little gem!

Tubi excels at bringing us superb little flicks that are too thoughtful and restrained to be commercial successes.

All the ingredients for a satisfying watch are here though:

Great acting, the hero holds the film together spectacularly with quiet, totally convincing acting, devoid of histrionics and hype.

Great realistic script and effective overall storytelling.

The formula of an astronaut stranded alone in space is treated as a test not of superhero heroics but quiet tenacity and philosophical musings on the nature of human existence and experience. It's physical and psychological survival in a real sense, not unbelievable stunts in a spacesuit and hanging off the spaceship by a thread.

The cinematography confines itself to the inside of the capsule, except for the shots of Venus towards the end which are realistically majestic and act as a catalyst for the hero's decision and the plot resolution. Yet, there's no sense of claustrophobia, because the closeups of the hero's face just fill the screen, and what a magnificent screen presence it is! Proof, like Cosmos, also currently available on Tubi, that in cinematography less whiz bang megabucks CGIs is more!

Supporting actors also do well, the great Lars Hendrickson putting in a beautiful cameo as the owner of the space company who's driven not by profit (Aliens, I'm looking at you!) but by concern for his crew.

Shakespeare, TS Eliot etc are quoted to much inspirational effect, and match the positivity and optimism of the ending.

A movie that leaves you feeling good at the end for having watched it, not feeling you've been had like so many blockbusters do.

Great cinema on a budget. Truly inspirational!