Reviews

I watched The Wheel of Time TV show before I read the book and thought it was an OK fantasy adventure. Even though the young cast were a bit annoying. Now, having read the book I have come to realise what a hack job the writers have made of the source material.

Just to be clear, I am not against changes to source material to translate text to screen, but in the case of the WoT the writers have changed the core lore established in the first book, which is completely unacceptable.

Also, add the manufactured grievances between many of the young characters and the personality changes to the characters and we have a show that feels too displaced from the brilliant source material.

I've also watched season 2 and thought it was better than the first season. However, I'm just about to start reading book 2, so my opinion may change if I discover what season 2 could have been.

I've watched all eight episodes of Fallout and I have been pleasantly surprised. This show does a really good job of nailing the feel of the games, with it's mix of gore and wacky humour.

All three protaganists are interesting to watch but I particularly liked The Ghoul, who had a strong backstory, and the Vault Dweller, who's naivety made for quite a few laughs.

The locations in the show were styled on the game and were true to the game. Although, they were all smaller locations. There were no wanderings in large, destroyed cities. I guess that would have meant a bigger CGi budget, so it's understandable.

Also, it would have been nice if there was more danger in the wasteland created by the multitude of creatures from the game. This felt a bit neglected in the show. Again, I suspect this would have added to the budget. Perhaps these small quibbles could be rectified in Season 2. Surely there will be a Season 2 as this first season is surely going to be a success.

I absolutely loved the way the plot threads came together in the last episode. It was really satisfying and leaves room for the story to continue.

One last point. I've played and been a fan of all the games over the past few decades and find the 1-star reviews from fans of the game to be very strange. What are your expectations? You have to give the writers the chance to tell a story about characters in the Fallout World and they've done that very well. The set designers, costume artists, etc have nailed the style too, so how can this be a 1-star show? Insanity!

A long, tedious story that in the hands of a decent writer would be a single Black Mirror episode. Instead we get 8 episodes of filler.

The acting isn't too bad but no amount of decent acting can save a show that has a very plodding plot.

Unfortunately, this show also included a pet hate of mines in film and TV - a precocious child. This child can figure out complex physics theories that adults can't.

The hyper-extended mother/child storyline was torture to watch. In fact, the family dynamic which included the father was tedious from start to finish.

This show was a lot of repetitive chat and it's inexcusable that it lasted 8 episodes.

A great adaption of a great book series. An absolutely vast improvement on the incredibly tedious, bloated and badly acted Chinese version that was released last year.

Also, this version isn't tainted by Chinese government propoganda and properly shows the incident with one of the main character's father right at the very start of the show, without censorship, unlike the Chinese version. It's a crucial scene that should should never have been interfered with. This ensures we understand her World view right from the get go.

The complex science aspects of this show have been made understandable in a way that makes this show accessible even to people who wouldn't normally read/watch hard sci-fi, and what a great plot it is.

Anyway, top marks from me. This is how to adapt difficult source material and condense it into a fascinating 8 part show.

I watched this many years ago when it was first released and I remember being very underwhelmed by it. But that was nearly 30 years ago an maybe my tastes had changed. After all, so many people claim it's a classic, so I decided upon a rewatch.

Well, it's mediocre at best. This film has one good bank robbery scene that lasts around 20 minutes. The remainder of the near 3 hour film is absolute boring drivel. I was struggling to stay engaged and kept browsing on my phone to kill time.

The acting isn't great either. That probably seems like a strange comment when you have 2 superstar actors and quite a few talented supporting cast. However, Pacino's overacting was particularly grating at times. That crazy, shouty, wild-eyed thing he does got really irritating in some scenes.

Anyway, the 4 rating I've given this film is probably generous but it's solely given for the one stand-out scene.

A very predictable story encased in a ridiculous premise about an architect who wants to tell people who live in his house how they should live their lives, with a bit if murder/mystery thrown into the mix.

It's very slow. You could say it's a slow build-up, but actually, it's just yet another example of a series being made of a script that should be a 90 minute 'made for tv' movie.

The only positives I can take from this show is that both the lead actresses put in good performances. I couldn't really say that about the rest of the cast.

In summary, far-fetched, overlong, boring, stupid plot.

A selection of actors I like who have their talents wasted on the most generic spy/action movie that I've watched in a while.

What's the plot?

Don't care.

What are out spies trying to achieve?

Don't care.

Why is Hugh Grant speaking with a cockney accent?

Because that's the limit of Guy Ritchie's creativity nowadays.

I remember when Guy Ritchie used to make mildly interesting gangster films. In all honesty, that's all he really seems capable of making. Every film he's released since the early days of his directorial career has been average at best. This film isn't even average. If I had known he was the director before I started watching, I like wouldn't have even bothered pressing 'play'.

A painful noise of a movie. There's always some ridiculous, frantic nonsense happening. This is to the detriment of characterisation and just becomes exhausting. The score just exasperates this struggle to stay attuned as it's almost constant, fast, annoying jazz. This is great if you love jazz but it's one genre of music that I find really irritating.

For me, I felt like one of those torture victims you see in movies, where some bad guy blares a noisy speaker into a prison cell and deprives the prisoner of rest and sleep. Thankfully, I was viewing this on streaming and could switch off after an hour and 30 mins. Maybe it improves but I just couldn't take any more.

However, visually it looks great and has some star quality in the cast, so a couple of marks for that. That was still not enough to keep me engaged.

I rated this having watched the first 9 episodes and thought it was awful. I gave it a 2/10. I have now watched all 30 episodes and have revised my review. The show moves at a glacial pace, particularly in those early episodes. The entire story could be told in 10 episodes but instead we get as lot of repetition of the same plot threads.

The show is also really heavy on exposition. 'Show, don't tell' is a concept lost on the creators of this show. It may be that the physics concepts are difficult to relay to an audience who may not have any clue about this sort of stuff without using exposition, but it still is a dated way of telling a story. Better writers could have found a way around this.

Clearly the creators of this TV show have failed to understand that book and TV are two very different mediums. If you are going to adapt a book then you need to make the story tight and make some serious edits to keep the viewer engaged. 30 episodes to the season has just meant that there is a lot of filler and frankly bizarre dialogue.

The acting isn't very good. The police officer is particularly grating. He over acts at every opportunity. Don't get me started on the non-Chinese actors either. Scraping the budget barrel with those hirings.

However, the series is not entirely awful. There is a clear step up in quality when we get to the backstory of Ye Wenjie from episode 10 onwards. Whilst her story still moved along slowly with far too much mundane filler, which could have been easily cut, seeing her life history was enjoyable. The story of her early life was quite moving. Unfortunately, the rest of the show did not come close to this quality.

I persevered with this TV show but it was hard work. I am so frustrated by this as I know from reading the book that it's an engaging story. With such original and engaging source material, the TV show shouldn't be so plodding. I am hoping the Netflix adaption later in the year will be an improvement on this show. That is at least made by people with pedigree. This show is simply amateurish, with terrible acting, bad writing, awful special effects and as previously mentioned, desperately in need of editing. If it had been cut to half the episodes then I would probably have added another 2 stars to this rating. Nothing in the story would have been lost by reducing the runtime.

This show has good reviews, so I thought I would be getting an in-depth story. Sadly, that was far from the case. Like too many TV shows it is a fairly unsubstantial story with a lot of filler to boost the run-time. This would once have been made as a 90 minute TV movie but not anymore. I guess this is what streaming studios have to do to boost content levels.

The main story about what happened to/between the main two girls is where the story is. However, this show gets bloated with really mediocre teen drama. Perhaps if you are a teen or like bad soap operas then you might find this interesting. Soaps do get big viewing figures despite being terrible, so there is an audience for this stuff. I personally found it absolutely turgid.

The main story itself, is rather far-fetched. The acting is not good. The writing is poor. Too many times a teen, who has lost a friendship, will dramatically appear in the bedroom of the former friend (how did they get access?), make some bland statement, and then the scene finishes with a dramatic piece of music like we used to get in bad 80's/90's, cheap TV movies.

Honestly, if you must watch this, watch the first and last episode and bin the rest.

I think IMDB requires a new genre to tag films with. This genre of this one is 'comedy' but I think we need a new genre called 'American comedy'. At least if it was tagged as 'American comedy', I would know it is not in the least bit funny before I start watching.

The first 5 minutes of this film was fine but throughout the rest of the runtime of this film I was waiting for something/anything to like. It never arrived. The story is awful. The characters are utterly unlikeable and caricatures. The laughs are non-existent. A film to avoid. Another recommendation by my favourite film magazine/podcast gone awry.

I was worried about a Top Gun sequel. It just seemed like a bit of a cash grab. But I think this does a decent enough job of entertaining the audience. Although, the top marks being given to it by IMDB reviewers and professional reviewers is a bit over the top.

The stand-out part of this film is the aerial cinematography. It really does look fantastic. I saw it at home but I think I would have been blown away by it if I had gone to the pictures to see it. The action scenes really are exciting to watch. All this nice action cannot cover up the problems elsewhere. Also, it was lovely to see Val Kilmer.

The plot is basic. There's nothing fresh or original about the plot. The love story sub-plot between Tom Cruise and Jennifer Connolly is totally unnecessary. It seems pretty obvious this role was written for Kelly McGillis but she must have refused to return for this film. In that context, it would have made more sense. It should really have been cut from the film.

Ejecting from a jet at Mach 10 and not dying? Nonsense!

The Top Gun pilots are all as dull as dishwater. Not the larger than life characters we had in the original. The 80's cheesiness is missing. There's very little character work beyond Miles Teller and Tom Cruise's interactions.

To sum up, it's a good film that is worth a watch, with beautiful action in the sky but that's all. It's no masterpiece.

An adventure based on a video game that I've enjoyed. Think Indiana Jones. However, this is nowhere near the standard of the Indy film but it's not as bad as that other video adventure game adaptation - Tomb Raider. This film sits firmly in the generic, formulaic middle ground.

The action is decent enough but becomes a bit too CGI heavy and ridiculous towards the end of the film. There's still enough in here to enjoy.

The casting isn't great. Tom Holland is no action adventurer. He's just not gruff and rough enough. Having a short fella with a high-pitched voice, who can't grow facial hair, play Nathan Drake is a massive casting error. That's not to say he's terrible - he's a good actor and he's at least been in the gym - but there must have been a better choice, surely? Similarly, Marky Mark as Sully. Not sure about that one either.

Also, a note to filmmakers - Using xenophobia for cheap (unfunny) jokes is not OK. You got a henchman to speak in an exaggerated Scottish accent just so you could mock him. Would you do that with a Chinese, Hispanic or black character?

Anyway, it was an OK couple of hours entertainment. I expect the almost 80 year old Harrison Ford will make a better adventurer in the upcoming Indy 5, which says a lot about this movie. It wasn't bad but not great either.

I never thought I would see a Batman movie match The Dark Knight but I was wrong. However, this film takes a different path and focuses on Batman the detective and skips the back story about his origins.

Robert Pattinson is absolutely terrific in the lead role. He wasn't an actor I particularly rated until I saw him in the Lighthouse. When I saw his piercing eyes in that and then heard not long after he'd been cast as Batman, I thought, this might just work. Sure enough, he is terrific. The best actor to play Batman, in my opinion.

The rest of the casting is inspired, too. Zoe Kravitz and Jeffrey Wright are perfect as Catwoman and Gordon. Kravitz was utterly seductive. I think she is also the best Catwoman I've seen.

Every actor in the criminal mob performs great, as does the actor playing The Riddler. Honestly, give the person who cast this film a medal.

The mood of the film was dark and miserable - as a good Batman film should be. It was beautifully dank, rainy and depressing. Gotham never looked so bad - in a good way. It was also nice to see some filming from Glasgow, my nearest city. The Necropolis shown in the last scene was a perfect location for a Gotham cemetery.

The action seemed heavily inspired by the Arkham games. In those, we see Batman surrounded and brawling with thugs. It felt visceral and really made me wince. Loved it!

I've noticed some reviewers complain about wokeness. They must have been watching a different film from me. Their main gripe seems to be that privileged white men are a target in this movie. If you don't think the World - the UK and US in particular - is choc-a-block with privileged, right-wing, white men then you need to open your eyes. Just take a look at every political party and media mogul. I say this as an unprivileged white man. Targetting the rich and powerful is not 'woke'.

Anyway, ignore every review that bleats on about wokeness and enjoy a dark, gritty detective story with stellar casting and cinematography.

This film is so poorly written to pass as an engaging spy film. There were so many cheesy, dull lines. I was cringing way too often - particularly in the last 4 minutes where I burst out laughing. The dialogue is exceedingly predictable and full of cliches.

Jessica Chastain - whom I normally enjoy watching - was probably the weakest character in this. She just didn't manage to convince me she was a spy. I think this is partly because each of the female agents have a role. Her role was to be the person who got into fist fights and she just didn't convince me that she was comfortable with the physicality of an action role. It's tough to make your fights believable when your ragdolling men twice your size. That might work in a Marvel film where women have fantasy powers but you can't get away with it in a supposedly gritty thriller.

I say gritty thriller but it feels like the action has been severely cut in the editing room. Possibly to gain a lower age certification or maybe it just didn't look convincing enough to show in full. Perhaps action was cut for both these reasons. The film ended up feeling a bit schizophrenic - gritty thriller or Charlie's Angels tribute act?

If you want to see a film that shows how a female actor can get the upper hand against physically stronger opponents and look believable, then watch Atomic Blond. In that film, Charlize Theron used objects around her and fought dirty to win against bigger, stronger men. She was smarter, not stronger, than her opponents. Plus, that film wasn't afraid to show her getting badly hurt and despite being an expert secret agent, she was still vulnerable. I guess Hollywood doesn't want to show a man physically assaulting a woman. That's understandable, but you can't sugar coat the violence in this type of film where trained killers want to...erm... Kill you!

The rest of the female spies performed better in their roles. Diane Kruger just shot everyone instead of fighting and looked comfortable when using firearms, i.e. Not closing her eyes and flinching when shooting. Sorry Jessica, you did that too. Lupita Nyong'o did the techy stuff. Fan Bingbing also did some fighting near the end. Stereotypically (*Sigh*), she did martial arts but was a tad more convincing than JC.

Honestly, if you want to watch a quality spy film with a female lead, go watch Atomic Blond instead. It's vastly superior to this. The 355 has been setup for a sequel. How about making Atomic Blond 2 rather than a follow-up to this vastly inferior film? Additionally, there are plenty espionage thrillers you can watch - Bourne Trilogy, Zero Dark Thirty, Casino Royale, etc. Watching any of these aforementioned films will make you realise how poor this offering is.

The plot promised to be more interesting than it actually was. In reality, it was just an excuse to shoe-horn legacy characters into the film.

I think there were too many characters and they all had little screen time. Certainly not enough time to write a plot that makes you care about them.

The supposedly funny riffing between the characters was painful to watch. I'm afraid this cast can't bring that jokey sparkle that we used to see with Chris Hemsworth, Robert Downey jnr, etc. Tom Holland is a particularly weak actor in comparison to those guys. Also, I think he went to the Liam Neeson and Gérard Butler School of Dodgy American Accents.

The CGI was a tad mediocre too and the action scenes lacked excitement. Spidey looked too fake during action scenes. Has Marvel reduced the budgets for artists? Because this looks worse than films from 5 years ago. Having said that, maybe I'm just forgetting that Spider-Man has always looked a bit fake when web-slinging around the city.

Despite my complaints, I didn't think this was a terrible film. Its a. Good film but no more than that. I'm probably giving it an extra star just for the nostalgia alone. But I'd prefer Marvel actually wrote some good character driven stories instead of using cheap nostalgia tricks. It's certainly not worthy of top marks, like a certain film review magazine in the UK gave it. Top marks would suggest it's as good as Infinity War, Endgame, or Civil War. This film is nowhere near that standard.

I'm not sure I would call this show a horror, unless you consider organised religion a horror. Actually, come to think of it, I kinda do.

Anyway, this show wasn't to my taste as it was about how religious zealots try to control people, rather than a supernatural horror. It was moderately interesting but just felt like a cheap network TV show. Oh, and the annoying YouTuber really grated. I literally had to mute the volume when he appeared and stick with subtitles only.