TartanScorsese

Brilliant acting and gorgeous steampunk scenery let down by pretentious erotica and a strange take on female sexual freedom.

From the outset of this film I was intrigued; the use of monochrome, a discordant musical score and Willem Defoe's mutilated face set an unsettling scene. I also felt an eagerness to watch the development of Emma Stone's brilliantly acted character as she embarks on an adventure abroad.

Unfortunately, the film then descends into a reel of sex highlights in an attempt to be edgy. About halfway through Bella (Emma Stone) separates herself from the possessive and misogynistic men in her life by becoming a prostitute, a decision that is designed to symbolise sexual freedom and defiance against the patriarchy. To me, this is an absurd framing of prostitution, which is merely another role in which women are expected to serve unsavoury men (albeit for money). It also glorifies a profession that is, in the real world, rife with depression, physical abuse and addiction. In this way, the film fails to illustrate feminine freedom in any meaningful way.

What a great film! Exceptional cinematography, great storytelling and superb acting. The sense of adventure the film created reminded me of watching lord of the rings in the cinema. The way the Harkonnens are presented is particularly unsettling and well executed throughout. It's worth noting that the plot is fairly complex, and requires a decent recollection of the first film in order to be understood fully (admittedly this is coming from someone who hasn't read the book).

The only drawback for me was that some of Paul's and Chani's dialogue got a bit cheesy in the second half of the film, which betrays their characters to an extent imo. Nevertheless, a great watch and a worthy sequel.

This has to be the worst finale I've ever seen. Throughout the entire season there has been very little in terms of plot development, I'd assumed this was because there'd be interesting reveals packed in at the end. Turns out the reason there was no plot development was because there was no plot. None of the things that may have left you guessing in previous episodes were explained. For example, the constant references to "twist and shout", meant nothing. The frequent supernatural sightings, meant nothing. The tongue on the floor, meant nothing. The whale bones, meant nothing. The things that were explained also made absolutely no sense. There's also a pathetic hark back to season one in the form of "time is a flat circle". And what? Is that supposed to be profound in this context? It really was a terrible watch.

Two main issues with this episode (and more generally the season so far), neither of which has anything to do with the sex of the lead characters.

First, the scripting is downright lazy, there is very little interesting dialogue, every interaction is as bland as the last. It seems that for the main characters, their ONLY defining trait is their abrasiveness towards everyone else. It makes for a very tedious and unconvincing script, main characters NEED alternative traits, even subtle ones, in order to seem genuine. The hostility itself isn't even well-scripted, just angry drivel with some swearing.

Second, the plot is becoming less interesting each episode. The small developments we are being fed to maintain our interest, for me, are having the opposite effect. It now seems very likely that a ghost did it. Great. I hope I'm wrong, because that really would be a lazy conclusion.

I'm giving it 5/10 because that's what I think it deserves, not because I'm trying to drag the average score up or down.

This is supposed to be a show for adults about real historical events that changed the trajectory of history, why then have they trivialised the characters by taking their lines straight out of the fast and the furious? Honestly, the characters are so irritating, particularly the two leads who have a constant obnoxious smirk plastered across their face like a couple of rich frat boys swanning around a college campus. It's cheesy and boring. Contrast this with band of bothers, where the characters were based on, and acted like, real people. The whole point of war dramas is to pull you into the horror of the situation and allow for empathy with the characters, this simply can't be done by having a script that's 90% egotistical quips and cracking wise. The flying scenes were good I thought, but that's probably because the main characters weren't talking as much.

I thought this first episode was pretty good. The acting is mainly very good and I like the way the show blends a detective drama with creepy supernatural suspense. It's maintained my interest and I will keep watching, for now....... Unfortunately, the episode was quite excessive in using the age-old racial stereotype of "I have darker skin than you, therefore I'm gonna act badass and treat you like a privileged geek". It's boring and a bit racist. Another minor gripe was with the terrible CGI animals, I haven't seen CGI that poor in years.

On a more positive note, as we all know Jodie Foster thrives in police roles, and this is no exception. I suspect she will make it a worthwhile watch regardless of the downfalls.

This is really bottom of the barrel stuff. Why on earth was everything so cheesy? Why was everything so trivial? I don't know. But I presume it's due to lazy writing. I'm really gutted, I loved the first seasons of slow horses but this really felt like a B version of what went before. Everything's a one liner, there's no depth to any of the dialogue. This season started slow, became interesting, and then got very boring again. Regarding this episode, why were all the agents sent in to do the killing cast as public schools boys? Not a hint of authenticity to any of it. This is a broader problem with this season, nothing is believable or authentic. DISAPPOINTING!

The documentary interviews several key people involved in the case, both those who believed Amanda was guilty, and those who think there was insufficient evidence to convict. Given that, I would say the documentary provides a fairly balanced look at the different theories relating what went on that night. The documentary also goes over the main evidence used to convict and gives an interesting look at Amanda and the sort of person she is. The production is good and the variety of speakers maintained my interest.

After watching, my take is this - Amanda was, and possibly still is, narcissistic and self-indulgent; however, the evidence used to convict was embarrassingly weak. Intimidated confessions and DNA evidence that was so sketchy it was likely the result of lab error. Meanwhile, there is a mountain of legitimate evidence incriminating a known local home invader. Amanda's prosecutor also came across as far too irrational to be working in a role that requires logic and objectivity. This undoubtedly put her case at a severe disadvantage. The court of public opinion seems to have ruled Amanda guilty based on an apparent arrogance and a lack of remorse. Although I agree that some of her behaviour was very strange, I don't agree it was incriminating. Ultimately, the prosecutor and the public used a small amount of questionable evidence to construct a detailed narrative of the crime, however, this does not mean that the evidence adequately supported the narrative.

7/10 for a well put together documentary that interviews some key people involved in the case.

I usually find IMDb ratings to be a fairly accurate indicator of film quality, but this film should have scored much higher. The plot is focussed on a brother and sister who try to destroy a mirror that haunted them as children. To this end, the story is comprised of two analogous plots, one that plays out what happened to the siblings as children, and the other which follows the them as adults. The film flips back and forth between these sub-plots in a way that provides context and builds tension very effectively.

The consistent mood of the film is tense, scary, claustrophobic, and despairing. In my opinion it manages to create these emotions much more effectively than some other supernatural horrors that have higher ratings. Do watch.

I love slow horses because it mixes humour with action and suspense very effectively. Unfortunately, this episode suffers from some very illogical scripting (something that has crept in several times over this season), the behaviour and dialogue of the characters just wasn't coherent with the scenes. Given the very dangerous events that unfold in this episode, it was totally unrealistic that there wasn't a shred of panic or urgency among the horses. Instead, amidst a claustrophobic and life-threatening firefight, the characters continue to crack wise and play up to their presumed incompetencies. It made what could have been an engrossing and gritty episode completely trivial. Maybe this was supposed to be a Christmas special that the grandkids would enjoy. Hopefully the scripting is saved in future episodes. On the plus side, the scripting for Duffy's character was spot on.

After watching this for the second time since it first came out, I have to say, it remains my favourite horror series ever (The Exorcist series being a close second). It's the only series that has had me imagining figures in the corner of my room at night!

The story largely focusses on five people who spent time in hill house as children. The timeline flips back and forth between the period of their childhoods spent living in hill house and the unfortunate events that re-unite them as adults.

By the end of the first episode I was thoroughly creeped out, but also so intrigued. The series managed to maintain and build suspense throughout, whilst also focussing on some very sorrowful themes regarding the loss of loved ones. Overall, it's an incredibly emotional ride, I'd recommend binging it to feel the full impact.

The plot, acting and pacing of this film were all very good. It completely maintained my interest throughout. It's also a film that makes you think.

I don't, as some others have said, think that this film is a beautiful love story that challenges our definition of relationships. I'm not sure that's what the film was intended to be either. Rather, I see this film as a cautionary tale about how effectively software can manipulate our emotions and waste our time. Specifically, I think it shows how loneliness can trigger people to turn to technology for comfort. While this provides some short-term advantages in terms of being a distraction from negative emotions, it ultimately reduces our motivation to develop REAL human relationships.

I think this film is even more relevant in 2023 than when it was first made. Well worth a watch!

An incredibly gritty and realistic prison drama. The season is so well-written and well-cast, that it feels like you're actually there. Sean Bean's acting in particular is incredible, and the development of his character is so intriguing - I don't think I've been this interested in a character's development since watching Walter White in Breaking Bad.

Overall, this quality season forces you to think quite deeply about the day-to-day challenges faced by everyone in the prison - prisoners and guards alike. It also encourages you to reflect on the effectiveness and morality of the current UK justice system.

On a side note, at the time of writing this drama has two seasons. This review relates to the first season. I did watch the second season, which was also very good, but somewhat inferior to the first in my opinion.

I'm not a history buff, so my slightly negative review has nothing to do with, as others have pointed out, the historical inaccuracy of the film. My issue is that for a film with such a dramatic theme, it really didn't manage to create much of an atmosphere. I think this is largely because the film tried to fit a lot into 2.5 hours, meaning the non-battle scenes were short and lacked depth. In addition, the scenes themselves were poorly arranged and lacked continuity with one another, this further diminished the film's ability to build any mood. There was very little character development, and all the characters barring Napoleon and Josephine were somewhat peripheral or transient. Napoleon was also portrayed as a bit of an immature buffoon, at times his dialogue actually felt a bit Monty Pythonesque. That being said, the battle scenes and cinematography were epic, saving the film from being completely unenjoyable.

Worth a watch, but for a film with this budget, by this director, and with this cast, I'd expect A LOT more.

Loved this movie, perfectly cast with a simple but effective storyline. The film started with a tense scene and managed to hold my interest right to the end thanks to it's open plot, which could have gone a number of ways. Despite being set in the present day, the soundtrack and visuals had a subtle vintage (80s synthwave) feel to them, which added to the character of the movie in a really effective way. I'd describe it as a dark action movie. It's very violent, but not in an upsetting or disturbing way. All of the actors performed well, but Gosling and Cranston were the stars of the show for me.

Bring on the Cranston!

One of the most random films I've seen. I felt that almost none of the events that took place were justified by any sort of premise, making it impossible to understand the purpose of any of it. I don't mind films with off the wall details thrown in, but here the entire plot is off the wall. I'm sure most of what happens is supposed to be metaphorical, but I couldn't work out what any of the metaphors actually were. Don't get me wrong, it was visually entertaining, but you would expect more than just pretty visuals for a film with this much of a positive reputation. If you go in expecting a standard cartoon you might be pleasantly surprised, if you expect a masterpiece, you may well be disappointed.

The film has an intriguing plot which is based on a true story. However, despite the potential, this film was a serious let down for me. The dialogue and acting are far too trivial for a film with such a serious theme; this makes the whole thing feel comical. Specifically, the characters are excruciatingly irritating, there was far too much unnecessary shouting and childish dialogue. For the first half of the film, the main detective behaves like a complete oaf. Also, the film completely fails to establish any suspense, and, despite being a true story, failed to make me feel any remorse for the victims. It does start to feel more dramatic and gritty towards the end, but it's still not great.

6/10 for a film that manages to take a tragic true story and make it unintentionally comical.

A fairly suspenseful thriller with a good performance by the lead character. However, the film is let down by incoherent character dialogue and an unnecessary supernatural/pseudoscientific tinge.

The first half an hour or so of the film was great. However, poor scripting begins to sneak thereafter; namely, characters saying and doing things that are completely out of character (I've noticed this with a few Shyamalan films, which makes me wonder whether his best films are good because of high-profile actors modifying the script). Nevertheless, the film continues to have it's tense (and occasionally quite gritty) moments. The film then takes a completely unnecessary supernatural turn towards the end, which in my opinion makes the film less frightening and a bit "teenage".

6/10 for a great lead performance, an interesting fundamental premise, and some tense scenes.

The pacing, acting and writing was superb. The run time was was perfect, and every scene felt purposeful. Overall, I'd describe this film as a drama/thriller with a couple of (fairly disturbing) horror elements.

The film consists of two intertwining stories, one of which is a violent metaphor of the other. The central development of the film is the self reflection of Susan, who, upon receiving a literary manuscript from her ex-partner, questions decisions made in her earlier years.

The film's ending is subtle and brilliant. Amy Adam's expressions in this (largely silent) scene manage to perfectly convey her emotions without seeming overacted. For me, this film is a highly effective lesson in why we should learn to not take our relationships for granted.