mike-3905

It's easier to list the ways in which this 2024 reboot fails rather than succeeds when compared with the original 2000 movie. Apart from mildly familiar characters, it's like watching EastEnders. And I am not a fan of EastEnders. Where's the tight editing? Where's the music? Where are the tension-building shots? I don't mean the obvious copies. It's not just shots that are lifted, it's dialogue.

Notwithstanding a promising cast, this TV prequel of a great movie falls down because it doesn't have enough ideas of its own. Its attempts to give the characters backstories is mostly successful but there's far too much copy and paste - not just from the original movie but also worn out crime drama tropes. Even the soundtrack is hackneyed. The writing is clumsy in places but then there's the odd laugh-out-loud one-liner.

With the occasional exception, production values lean cheap and soapy, unlike Glazer's original masterpiece. The makers clearly lacked the commitment to make their own show and have aimed at a "safe" imitation only to miss their target.

I stuck with it because I like the characters. But you really ought to treat yourself to the 2000 movie. After episode 8, I thought: "is that it?"

I've watched my fair share of music biopics, and this was enjoyable enough once I'd tuned into it. It is however rather patchy - in every respect. Perhaps that's a deliberate choice.

It's also quite cheap, leaning heavily on contemporary footage. Due to this and merely average writing, it struggles to find its own aesthetic and develop its full potential. It's hard to believe this is a 2020s movie; it feels older.

Why does any of this matter? Because it feels like a story that ought to be told properly. But this ^^^ might be it. Even Elvis only got one biopic. Though Joy Division got two - just saying.

By turns quirky, kinetic and sassy, this show was hugely enjoyable. Being a Brit I've no handy frame of reference but it reminds me of some of Edgar Wright's stuff. I'm sure the jokes land harder to a native speaker but I laughed plenty - especially at the visual and situational ones.

But this is no mere comedy. It is one of many myths or fables that could be told about a difficult time for former Eastern Bloc states. That it's done with so much colour and character optimism is striking. The characters are just ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances. Although Kleo's skills are far from ordinary.

Fun but very silly B-movie. Not so much poundshop 007 as pervy Dr Who. There is scant story, dialogue or direction. Both James Robertson Justice and Charlie Hawtrey are completely wasted (although were they actually wasted their performances might actually improve). A half hour nap would not disrupt your viewing pleasure.

The photography, art and wardrobe (or lack of) are the only things keeping the ship afloat as it lurches towards the final credits; although sheer awfulness of execution makes for truly comical moments along the way. If you like "so bad it's good" movies I recommend this one.

Starts off well and the journey seems exciting. Gets stodgy in the middle due to lack of story; the drama becomes overcooked, with lots of glaring. Gets a bit silly towards the end. And then sillier.

The thing to remember is this is a Robert Harris adaption. The book is probably better. The fantasy element was neglected.

There was a point quite early on when I thought I might enjoy this show. Going back to the RedCliff Ascent Brat Camp in 2003, I've enjoyed watching young lives transformed for the better. But Snowflake Mountain is scripted - and the worse for it. For "reality TV" there are few moments of actual reality. What you get is filtered, distilled and bottled - then labelled to avoid you coming to the wrong conclusions.

Obviously the contestants - there's no other word - are either top actors or genuine snowflakes but that's only 10-20% of it. Perhaps that's good news for humankind. But there's very little depth or pathos.

I almost bailed during the first episode - it is quite poor - but am glad I didn't. From the second installment, pace and density build to their - by now well known - tragic conclusions.

In a drama about authority it was inevitable that parenthood would loom large. There are good, bad, absent, fake and surrogate parents. It is as much a coming of age piece as a Rock and Roll biopic. You're left wanting to know what the survivors did with the rest of their young lives.

The art is a lot of fun, there is dark humour and some fall off your chair one-liners. The effect is grotesque yet believably authentic.

Some have said that Chrissie Hynde's character is sort of neutral observer but she's not involved enough for that. Instead - perhaps unsurprising for the director of Trainspotting - the story has no narrator, no winners, only survivors.

This is good entertainment, well-paced with pithy dialogue and some laughs. The central conceit works well until the finale when things get just too serious for the foundations and it begins to wobble. Other than that a nice way to spend time; and if there's another season I'll give it a go.

I was recommended The Hit on the basis I'm a big fan of Sexy Beast. They really don't compare.

It's OK I guess. This is an 80s film and the bar for crime drama was low.

The main problem is not enough script for a full movie. It's barely even a short story, more like one act strung out to 90 minutes. As a result the fine cast compensate with over-acting.

The hammyness is probably the best thing about it. Watch with the right group of mates and you may even be amused.

This could have been so much better, but it really isn't. The photography's passable where effort has been made, but mostly ho-hum. The sound is so compressed it may as well be a daytime soap. As others have noted the script is simplistic and ineffectual.

Did the makers of this show even know what they wanted? It's not cool, it's not noir, it doesn't provoke any thought. They've taken one of the great Cold War novels and made it into a bog standard TV crime drama.

It's really hard to know who the audience for this movie is supposed to be. The humour and pacing (such as it is) are more suitable for children, but the language and violence are clearly adult.

I was willing to believe a Crowe / Gosling movie guaranteed a certain level of quality. Nope. This is quite the turkey. You can safely miss it.

I don't know what they were going for here. The movie knows what genre it belongs to, but can't be bothered to push the art in the way I expect of Richie. So it ends up being a cheesy cardboard cutout.

I am quite enjoying this. Ignore the terrible theme music, they get rid of it for Season 2.

I guess I came here via Barbarians, but it isn't quite the same. The story arc is more complex, as is the patheon of characters. Where Barbarians was mostly politics with a bit of romance, Britannia majors in controlled madness; with occasional light relief from minor characters such as Nikolaj Lie Kaas referencing Nicol Williamson's Merlin - if I'm not mistaken.

Mackenzie Crook is impressive. As someone whom I think is funny doing nothing, he steers it the right side of camp.

The result is a visual and visceral romp with a touch of Heart of Darkness; even if there are some obvious corners cut.

Other than I enjoyed the trailer I didn't really know what to expect from this movie; but I was not disappointed. Its characters are very English and very repressed; and it deals with what is under the surface. Which is sometimes very solid, in other cases much less so.

A lovely "little" movie that does not set out to change the world but hits all its marks. Acting is excellent. Editing within the scenes is sharp, but there are joins between the scenes that perhaps could have been better.

I wasn't sure at first if this was for me. Although it is a little "soapy" there's none of the gratuitous histrionics of GoT. Everything that happens serves the story. As a result it's fairly fast-paced with a pleasing mix of drama, politics, intrigue as well as lighter moments - and some dark ones. Some of the plot doesn't scan - I'll leave you to decide.

My experience watching it is a 7.5 / 10 but I find my mind keeps going back wanting more. Definitely one of the better shows of 2020.

Overall this is not a bad documentary, revealing much more than I previously knew about the subject. I'm glad there are plenty of female voices, but it's a shame the makers chose to feature such extreme views such as those claiming men were forcing them to behave a certain way when in truth they all made informed choices. The world would obviously be a far better place without the likes of the Ripper but to blame all men for his actions cannot be taken seriously. So too the misrepresentation of objective observations as naked prejudice: an agenda in search of evidence. Unfortunately this is a dripping tap in one particular episode.

That the Ripper was not caught sooner is obviously cause for regret. But I haven't seen anything showing the cops weren't trying - quite the opposite. They just didn't have the tools to do much better: no DNA matching, very few computers, profiling in its infancy. Anyone can criticize.

Disappointing. Every time it starts to get to brass tacks there's yet another random flashback showing how he's so normal. Or exceptional. Or both. His peers - male and female - professing admiration and puffing him up for being quick, smart, knowledgeable. All which might be true. But is not relevant unless you're going to take that somewhere. Instead, the series makers seem intent to use it as a distraction.

DSK may have been acquitted; but post Epstein, post Weinstein we know better about the unequal justice available to rich and poor. His reputation as a sexual predator was well established at the time of the accusation - as the documentary shows, but of course does not dwell on for a frame longer than necessary.

I did not get very far into the series. This indulgence of DSK reminds me how much I detest the rotten heart of European politics.

As someone who had been waiting since 1992 to be asked if it was OK being in the EU, you might expect me to excoriate this drama. I'm not. It was entertaining and for the most part well executed. Cumberbatch is engaging just as you'd expect although portrayals of minor characters are patchy. The pacing is pretty good, keeping what might otherwise be a dry political drama ticking along nicely.

What wasn't good? The silly prophecies and poorly grounded denouncements, which spoil an otherwise competent work.

Having just finished T2 I can pronounce it a worthy successor. I first read the book (which I thought fairly dark) as a young man in the 90s then saw the movie and thought it relatively lighthearted and funny. T2 is in the same vein and hits all its marks just as Mark says. The updated "Choose Life" monologue is excoriatingly on-point.

The film is worthy in its story, its visuals, but particularly in its perspective. It allows the viewer to reflect on early choices made in the heat of the moment, and on the importance of "character". All the characters grow up a little bit, but not as much as you'd hope. Spud is still a loser but he is the childlike heart of the story to Renton's intelligent yet impulsive grownup. Diane is also worthy of mention, remaining an aloof and cool super-ego, the person Renton wishes he could be.

In the Netflix age this could easily have been spun out to a dozen hours (which would have eclipsed the original movie) but does well to tell its story in the alloted time.

Finally: read the books.

It's OK if you simply want a reasonably accurate film of the book, perhaps in the background while you do something else. There are occasional good moments and performances but no real consistency except for the dated soundtrack (which must have sounded old even in 1986) and Miami Vice aesthetics.

What is lacking is the drama and suspense fans will be familiar with from the books, other films and recent TV series. It's not bad or wrong, it's just not very good. There's not much else to say and I'm not saying don't watch it just don't be disappointed - as I was, having read quite a few more positive reviews.

Viewing this movie's rating histogram reveals it's like Marmite. But my advice is stick with it because when it's good it's really really good and that more than makes up for the somewhat lame bits, which are only at the beginning to be honest. Perhaps I just needed time to warm up to the characters.

It's true there's not a strong plot but the characters stand out, especially Benny and Nadia. A second viewing would probably reveal a stronger emotional thread for the slow-of-heart, myself included. I'm not sure if this is a first for a Rom-Com / Mockumentary mash-up (thank-you, IMDb spelling engine), but I enjoyed it.

Thank-you Ed Reardon for inspiration when it comes to meeting IMDb's asinine 10 lines requirement. Isn't that right, Elgar?

Up front, I should say I'm not a fan of the Marvel (etc.) genre. I wanted to see a movie with my daughter (15) and we both thought we could truck with this, having both enjoyed X-Men: First Class.

An otherwise talented cast ham their way through a wooden script, delivering a few moments of charm but nothing approximating genuine human pathos, and a whole lot of eye-rolling awfulness.

Despite the movie's premise having been lifted from elsewhere, the movie plays out exactly as you would expect. This film treats its audience like children, and could have been written by a committee of younger fans. Perhaps I should have expected that.

For me, special effects are not enough: I've seen those before. They must serve a dramatic purpose, but here, the money shots only served to cheapen my overall experience. Mutants are not enough. I know enough about the characters already. It's like "okay, I get it - finish the story!" It lacks anything for grown-ups, having a dramatic arc comparable to Saturday afternoon TV offerings like Dukes of Hazzard or The A Team (showing my age there). Sorry to be blunt, but if this is the best the genre can offer, I will steer clear in future.