Reviews

For a start, I did enjoy the initial start and although it raised some questions, I stayed till the end of Season 1.

Sarah Lancashire did a brave rendition of Julia Child but ultimately it felt like a caricature with a cartoon voice. Seems a lot of people can imitate JC but few get it right. In reality Julia's voice had a resonance and richness that no one seems able to get right. Have a listen to some of her interviews. She was also not buxom nor that big, just tall. Clever use of low camera angles to achieve this with a 5'7" actor. I like Sarah's work, but this must have been quite difficult.

The episodes were titled after a dish from her recipe book but didn't actually feature in the episode. Seemed pointless to me. In fact, there really wasn't any cooking on display the entire season, just close ups of egg beating, ripping a chicken apart and the finished product. An opportunity missed as all the TV shows from her cooking shows are widely available.

There was also a number of head scratching moments. Alice Naman, a black woman where one never existed. This stuck out as there were no other people of colour in the studio, anywhere! Others have gone on about timings of historical events, hints at gay encounters, visiting gay nightclubs, live broadcasts that weren't, every car in every scene in pristine condition and so on. All of it invented for this series and not accurate. The one liners were obviously written for the characters and everyone had them.

Why I find this so unfortunate is that this should have been as accurate as possible, major plots need to be correct. This is how people are going to think things happened, and what life was really like and then becomes a rose coloured glasses version of Julia Child's life when it is not.

Ultimately I found the season losing it's aim and wandering off into drivel. As side characters developed, JC got lost and the drama (if you could call it that) focused on characters and events that never happened and had no interest for me. Julia Child's life was interesting and entertaining although I do question her cooking ability, she did bring French style recipes to the land of tuna casserole, meatloaf, mac and cheese with an ice cream soda for desert. I'm sure anything would have been an improvement on that.

Finally, this is for IMDB. When I look at the 'Trivia' section, I would prefer to see Trivia on the show. Getting props for the set, how accurate the kitchen was, sourcing clothes and other items for the period, mastering JCs voice. The making of the show. NOT who worked with who in Star Trek, references to Fraser (yes WE KNOW), not a competition held in another show. Some of these Trivia items have thin strings to other shows, who worked for what producer and tenuous connections that make you wonder why it's there?

It's a 5 for the fine performances, but it lacked direction and had too many made up scenes that shouldn't have been there.

Why would you pick average or below average chefs for a supposedly top hotel? Drama is why.

As others said, I got fatigued hearing '5 star' every 10 minutes.

The chef yelling at the chefs while running the pass was unacceptable, this type of behaviour is no longer a thing. The woman appeared to have little knowledge and I am guessing was brought on as eye candy and ended up being annoying.

The chefs were average and I highly doubt they have run a good kitchen. Some even complained they had to do deserts and couldn't do a decent pastry? Are you kidding? They should be able to do this with a blind fold on. I also have serious doubts about their hygiene. Sweating all over their dishes and flicking long hair all over the place. Blurgh.

There wasn't one dish I wanted to try, all average, none cool or interesting and just rubbish. It's a 3 because of the high wastage, pretentious prats and constant inane banter from the hosts.

It's a shame that in 2023 film makers have nothing new to add to this genre.

I was looking forward to this, a good exorcism film is hard to find and with Russell Crowe at the helm I felt sure this was going to be it!

Sadly it wasn't. If anything RC was miscast. He traditionally comes across as dark and moody which is probably not a good look for a man of the cloth. The unending Italian (which I assume is correct) at the beginning of the film went on a little too long. Subtitles would have helped but none to be found. Crowe's accent was a little too thick for me as if he was trying hard to add the inflection of an Italian speaking English then it would fade when he talked too much. Then, start all over again.

The film itself was run of the mill. Inherit creepy castle from dead dad and fix it up with no money. Small boy/girl possessed. Deep voice (that occasionally missed the sync) and threats of exposing sexual naughty bits. The scurry to find it's name and the over the top make-up of cracked skin, throw in some body twisting and wall bouncing and you have your movie. Pretty much a copy of every other movie of the genre. Even RC looked bored with it all at one point.

The ending came quick and over CGI'd then we all have a joke and hint at either a sequel or more likely a TV show with 199 episodes. I'd say without RC.

Surprisingly I found myself distracted by a news item in the paper during one of the more intense scenes and realised when I looked back, I'd missed nothing.

It's a 5 as RC made it more watchable and it's the first horror I've seen released in a while. I have missed supernatural horrors so much I have to give it a 5. Without RC it would fall to a 4.

This appears like a Lifetime thriller, all style, no action, no mystery.

C grade actors whose previous bit parts include 'pregnant woman', 'Man #1'or other such forgettable walk ons that no one knows who they are. Over acting by the lead who needs to be talking while texting exactly what she is texting. Who texts full words complete with correct grammar? And the nyeh nyeh laugh will make want to stop watching. Another interesting badly filmed part was when they were doing selfies which instantly appeared on the screen. Their facial expressions were nothing like the pictures.

Most of this can be blamed on the writing and production efforts. Hard to believe someone would move to a city to be closer to her boyfriend and then live apart. And live comfortably while unemployed.

There are just too many holes and too much bad writing including a silly plot that spoils this. Why roofie girls for sex when they are obviously rich enough to hire hookers.

It's a 2 because I watched most of it before it got too much. This review is in response to the obvious crew voting it 8-10 artificially making an average of 5.8 at time of this review. Something which needs to stop. Eventually it will settle on about 4.4 where it belongs.

I figured out pretty early on that it didn't take itself seriously or at least Gerard Butler didn't.

14 pax out of Singapore just before Christmas? The flight should have been full. There were lots of errors in predeparture and the comms with the tower when they taxi for take off. And no other planes? The set up was easy to see, prisoner being transported, bad storm and then we're off.

This had all the hall marks of Die Hard, Lethal Weapon and any other action film you can think of from the 80s. After all the dross coming out of Hollywood why not just bring a film out to do one thing and that's entertain. And that's what it did. No woke (and that's a word I hate) message, no easily identified alphabet people (because it didn't matter). Just an action film, a hero and the usual tropes to propel it along. Believability played no part as it didn't in Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Commando or Rambo (and any subsequent parts). Just a hero, a dubious helper (the prisoner, who's part was never explained but had skills) , a hapless bunch of passengers and some native evil doers with guns. Let the popcorn flow.

I wish they had done more with the passengers, they turned out to be just there and will not be remembered. They certainly could have amped it up more and taken the 80s action higher but it was a good time waster and I felt no need to think beyond what was shown. Hence I didn't care about the errors.

It's a 6 because it entertained me without preaching like most films do at the moment. But for God's sake, NO SEQUEL!

Austin Butler did a good job of playing Elvis, although I fear there is a perception of Elvis now that is impersonated that is far from the real thing. Most actors and singers have a persona for their fans and are different in private life. My feeling is that Elvis in private never saw the light of day in this movie. The songs were out of order and timeline was just odd. I feel for his backing band (The Jordanaiers), they barely got a mention although they were his backing band his entire career.

He had a 15yo Girlfriend in The US during his stint in Germany when he met 14yo Priscilla. This must be the sanitised version.

Now, Col Tom Parker. I have nothing against Tom Hanks but maybe he should research his character better. I remembered an interview I heard from around 1956 and couldn't recall an accent of any kind. I hunted it up (thanks youtube) and sure enough, despite being Dutch born and going to the US when he was 20, he never had an accent. In fact he claimed he was American born and would never have had an accent if he wanted to convince people.

Its a 3 for the great black musicians I saw, enough that I'm off to find some more. Shame the movie was a stinker but Priscilla will be rubbing her money hungry hands together.

I was going to give this a 6 but a few recurring themes troubled me.

Great questions and asked very eloquently shows that serious thought was put into what to ask the guest, but you can't tell me they weren't forewarned. Their answers are consistently just as thought out and answered. Also, no controversial items are brought up, at all which is probably why he has had such a good range of guests. However, that doesn't make for an interesting interview and most are forgotten as soon as the the show is finished. It also reeks of self promotion on behalf of the guest.

The other consistent theme is Sean Evans always copies the guests reaction, whether it's the portion sampled or the reaction to the heat. If the guest is struggling so is he, if they sail through without much of a reaction, so does he. Once even the crew mopped his dry forehead as the guest was sweating bullets. He eats so much of this he has to be comfortable with the heat level by now. This gives it a feeling of being disingenuous. That along with repetitious introductions and ending which could be altered to be more interesting mark this as a 4. Shame really, it could be a 6 with better production values.

This is a prime example of finding the right formula in the first season and totally ignoring it in the second, to it's own discredit.

Season 1 left each episode showing that there are options and sometimes life doesn't always work the way we thought it would. Season 2 seemed to concentrate on a 'Happily ever after' and Episodes 4 & 5 made me give up all together. They looked to be attracting the High School crowd of younger viewers and I was left out in the cold as an older viewer.

It's a 6 mostly because Season 1 deserved closer to an 8 but I lowered it because the Season 2 lost it's shine.

I can't believe the amount of fan boy reviews but then, looking at the quality of entertainment coming our way, maybe I can.

What's good: Great (and I mean GREAT) action flying scenes. The actors must have had a ball filming them and the cinematography was excellent. Very little CGI but that's about all that was good.

What's not TC being called an old man when he looks 20 years younger (or more) than his actual age. Not really believable, The excessive testosterone on display. The beach football was straight out of 1986 and looked awkward at best, Anyone else notice the oiled up actors? A little bit odd and uncomfortable. Jennifer Connelly would have been 16 in 1986 so age appropriateness for actresses is still not a thing? I wasn't sold on the love interest with TC. Their was no chemistry and it felt forced. About believable as her making enough money from the bar to own a Porsche. TC stealing a fighter to show off and being given the Team Leaders role. Aw shucks, ya fly so good you can have the job. Reality? He'd be locked up and face a court martial. Attacking a country on their own soil? A bit too far regardless of who it is. The story was entirely predictable when there should have been room for something new.

So a 5, I did enjoy the movie overall but keep asking myself, is this as far as movie making has come in 35 years?

I was looking forward to this as I'm like most people, I'm unsure.

I didn't expect this documentary (and I use that term loosely) to answer any of my questions, but I expected depth. And I didn't get it.

I can't comment on the claims made either by Bill Maher or those he interviewed as I'm not scholarly in religion and have a layman's understanding of the bible, Islam etc. But I can tell that interviews were set up and edited to make the interviewee look small or comical. The best example was the quick fire questions/comments Bill Maher gave to two gay Muslim men in Denmark (from memory). No chance for them to reply and then finishes with them looking stunned. What a poor interview and planned to entertain, not educate.

Interviews interspersed with attention grabbing snippets from movies to drive a point and sarcastic comments while the interviewee was trying to explain their beliefs or answer a question confirmed this was Bill Mayer attempting comedy where it wasn't needed. One interviewee managed to turn the tables and refused to let Bill M talk or comment while he was explaining himself. To the point Bill M got up and walked out. That was gold!

As someone else commented, the last 10 minutes were the best but not really worth sitting through over an hour of 'The Bill Mayer Show'. Enough for me to give it a 5 and make me look into this further.

That's about the easiest way to describe this.

Others are right in that it was one sided and that gave the illusion of bias. I say illusion because neither side backed their claims. I really need the ones screaming LIAR to tell me what in the stories that the media present are actual lies.

With the ownership of major media falling into private hands the question of bias must be raised as the owners have political affiliations. The Washington Post leans left and Fox leans right.

The problem with this programme is that it starts with Hulk Hogan v Gawker. The argument was whether Gawker had the right to show Hulk having sex with a woman in a bedroom that was being not so secretly videoed. What happened, wasn't called into question, Hulks claim of right to privacy, despite that it was her husband (his best friend) that filmed it. Hulk won and Gawker immediately found out Peter Theil was behind Hulk financially, though again no evidence of how that affected the outcome.

The programme then morphs into Trump and his attack on the media, Then the buy out of the Las Vegas Review Journal (never heard of it either) and the buyer being secretive. Turns out it was bought by a Trump friend but no evidence offered that they influenced any news release other than telling one reporter he couldn't talk about the owner's family.

Lots of footage of Trump attacking the media and calling them liars but no examples of what they supposedly lied about.

For a journalistic piece I found it messy, very disconnected and somewhat biased with lots of 'freedom of the press' being trotted out to defend their position. There are many tentacles to this beast - biased journalism, owners with political connections, public who gaslight when their opinion isn't the same as the reporters, politics that uses it as a weapon and an enemy. Good journalism gets lost in the mire. To explore all these angles would take a better production than this.

It's a 4 because it's a subject that needs to be explored but it needs to be balanced and independently verified. Not just a bunch of journalist moaning about what used to be. Perhaps they need to move forward like the rest of the world and redefine how to report articles that aren't biased or self serving, like this documentary.

Ignore the 1 and 2 star ratings, most have only ever done 1 or 2 reviews and seem to be using it to attack journalism. And that's getting old.....