eve_dolluk

I never thought it possible that they could do a TV show based on the Fallout games but here we are.

The show is set after all the games of which I have played them all. Id say this story is more of a cross between Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 and is closer to them two timelines.

We follow Vault 33 which has yet to open and access the Wasteland of the United States, vault 33 is situated in LA which hasn't featured in the games before.

Everything in the show is very familiar with the games and I instantly recognised the style and the colours, the settings and the music.

After a really good opening in 2077 when disaster strikes we shift to the year 2296, over 200 years in the future and nearly 10 years after the finale of Fallout 4.

Without giving much away Lucy from vault 33 is thrust out into the open on a quest yo find her father. We also follow a Soldier of the Brotherhood of steel, an initiate/scribe called Maximus as well as a Ghoul ( radiated human ) called Cooper Howard.

There are other familiar sects and groups from the games who populate the world the tv show is set.

The overall vibe of the show is Quirky but dystopian and violent, expect gore and blood and some mild sex scenes.

The cinematography is excellent and this is a fast paced show that does not get bogged down in exposition nor melodrama yet the depth of the games is there. If you know the games you might not get all the details or history of prior events but the games were all seperate stories as well with very little character crossover and the TV show follows this ideology.

Im not sure why there is some low reviews, maybe female and black leads is too much for some ??.

Most reviews are good and I totally agree, its an 8 out of 10 could be a 9 even !!

This is a good adaptation of the games and the games core setting.

The violence and dystopian anarchic setting may put people off but within all of this is hope and human character.

8.5/10.

Overall the film isn't bad but its nothing good.

There is too much pandering to a certain audience.

I see this a lot in cinema and art but and i like this. Not sure i want to see it in a Ghostbusters movie.

Im sure initial reviews will be high, coming from a certain demographic

The film is ok but lacks originality ( obviously )

Its an ok film but i'm not sure i want to be force-fed sentimentality behind a teenage love affair.

Lets move on and produce original stories. Stop clinging on to the past.. please.

I loved the OG Ghostbusters, I watched it at the cinema on opening night. Bill Murray became a hero. If only Bill could be free to be off script, or anyone for that matter.

This panders, and not just to fans, it panders to....

I must admit however they do a good job of handling a homosexual relationship ' based on love ' .

Lacks heart 6/10.

When a writer ends up in the middle of her own spy novel hilarity ensues... Except it didn't.

The silliness and the parody was dialled down to luke warm. Everything was there for the taking but in the end its a small nudge here and a flickering wink there without hitting the comedic mark.

Mel Brooks was the master of parody and while some of his stuff was obvious and silly and childish its also what we loved about his films.

I feel Argylle will be forgotten about very quickly. It had a great cast, a great premise all the spoof elements but missed the comedic mark as well as using some cartoonish CGI which didn't work either, the tone just wasn't right.

It was however interesting to see Bryce Dallas Howard turn into Adele the singer half way through ( new Adele ). Henry Cavill and John Cena are used fleetingly and Sam Rockwell while being his usual quirky self didn't have enough to work with to really make his mark.

You have to wonder wether this was a watered down version post edit or they set out to achieve this from the start, i believe its the former based on the directors previous projects, the cast choices and the premise.

While not an awful film, it was bland, cartoonish and lacking in humour while trying to be too clever and overly long.

6/10.

Having only seen 1 pilot episode I obviously can't fully revue this show but I can see that there has been a lot of effort put into making a good adaptation of a very interesting book.

I watched the chinese tv show which is slow, dark and cumbersome but intriguing nonetheless.

While this adaptation is close in narrative to the books there are obvious changes made to present this to a western audience while trying to retain the heart of the story.

The pace of this show is good, its not however an action fast paced sci fi extravaganza. This is a thoughtful show where the mystery and intrigue looks like it will unravel over many episodes as we follow the characters and their Discovery's.

The Chinese adaptation seemed to take a few altered political narratives and doubled down on its maths and science route often lacking an emotional connection to the viewer. Whereas in the book the emotional outlook of humanity tugs at its core.

Visually everything is on point and the performances where solid, even though little was revealed it flows nicely although i can see many people wanting answers it would be a disservice to the books to do so.

I am looking forward to watching the entire series and how they deal with hard to adapt science and quantum physics ideologies and tie into its core human nature plot.

For some this show may be a bit niche or overwhelming for others it will be not as in depth or complex as may be hoping for.

8/10 for its opening.

This was decent, every Welsh actor ever is on it lol.

Its all a bit OTT and slightly unrealistic but its well paced, interesting and fun.

There is all sorts of stuff tied in to myth, legend and the fantastical but all good stories are.

The idea and concept are good but there are certain elements that are a bit OTT and the very quick divide between the English and Welsh was a bit rapid. Not everyone in England is a Tory loving, Westminster ally.

Most of us hate em haha.

Its only about 160 mins long total so an easy watch.

There is probably too many elements that they try and cram into it all and some lack depth but the core stuff is all there are and the story is complete bit with a slightly open ending.

Decent 7/10.

First of all the style and photography of this film are good. I really enjoyed the style and way it was shot.

The story is a sombre tale of a dysfunctional family which in itself is fine but it really lacks the emotional weight to carry this through.

Luke David Blumm was good but more focus should have been on him, he is the centrepiece of the story.

Instead the film focuses around Lola played by Nichola Peltz Beckham..I thought that was a strange decision then lo and behold i find out it was written and produced by Nichola...

Rather than focus on the story and key characters we focus on Nichola, Nichola with her brother ( the best bits ) , Nichola arguing with her mum ( not so great or believable), Virginia Madson does an ok job of being a toxic mum.

Nichola with her friend ( kind of fun ) Raven Goodwin is decent.

Nichola at the strip club.

Nichola with her, kind of boyfriend ?

Nichola staring blankly into the distance.

Nichola looking upset with a blank stare.

Nicholas make up never changing throughout, sleeping, baths, rape, tears and trauma.

Plaudits to the DoP on this film as its beautifully shot and while Nichola is a beautiful girl she gets tiresome and lacks the emotional weight to pull off the character.

This could have been a lot better if Nichola was able to step back more and create something that was not just a Nichola Pelz Beckham showreel.

I guess when you have a billionaire father and Millionaire husband anything is possible though.

5/10.

This is a Frankenstein follow up ??.

A woman gets hold of Dr Frankensteins diary and recreates his experiment on her husband to cure him 100 years after Frankensteins original monster.

This diary has been sought after by many but a secret group are trying to locate the diary and destroy it for good as it goes against nature and god.

Sounds fairly interesting and and the overall concept is solid.

The costumes and settings are pretty believable for the time, around late 1800s.

The dialogue is a bit wooden however like a stage show, I'm pretty sure this is down to both the writing and the poor way in which the actors deliver the lines attempting to sound authentic from that Era.

There are some experienced and decent actors here but I never felt they embraced the ideology or the era properly.

Phillip Martin Brown does a decent job here but not enough to carry the film.

The way in which it was shot also removed an authentic feel and resembled a higher image quality version of a 90s tv movie.

I watched this to see Michelle Ryan as i liked her in Eastenders and the she did Bionic Woman and then her career fizzled out.

She appears later in the film in a limited role.

There were quite a few moments watching this where I chuckled at some of the poor dialogue or the poor delivery or facial over acting.

Honestly Id skip it even if you have Prime, unless you are a huge Frankenstein fan but then you might hate it even more.

4/10.

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is classed as a masterpiece, it gained this accolade over many years. Initially it was deemed obscene, blasphemous, sensationalist and pandering to science e.t.c.

It was banned in many places and divided opinion amongst society.

This film I should imagine will garner similar opinions as its grotesque and bordering on immoral.

There is the question of sexual exploitation and even paedophilia. Exploitation is at the heart of this film while the paedophilia is rather ambiguous. Whether this is a promotion of these elements or an artistic depiction of what happens every day in society is the real question.

Getting away from all the politics, the film in itself is a cinematic masterpiece, visually its artistically brilliant, its Tim Burton meets Terry Gilliam.

Emma Stone is excellent as Bella staying memorably aloof while dealing with complex on screen issues. Is she a child or a monster how quickly does her brain develop to an adults ? Does she ever really become human or is she just a horrific science project like the rest of the oddities produced by Godwin. Willem Defoe does a brilliant job again portraying an aloof scientific technocrat with the experiment and its results being the most important thing while also seeing himself as a mild father figure.

Mark Ruffalo is again brilliant as the caddish groomer who knows how to exploit the situation to his advantage even though it is a rather hammy and slapstick portrayal it all works well.

Interesting to note that Mary Shelley's father was called William Godwin obviously the film pays homage to her.

If you are easily offended especially by nudity or sexual scenes then I'd advise you to avoid.

Does the film promote a positive message ?? No Does it highlight the realities of what young woman go through in a grotesque and unflinching manner yes.

Its a scientific point of view through a fish eye lense of how we could perceive growing up and sexual pleasure and defining relationships.

Of course this isn't how things are in reality and this film has its feet firmly planted in non reality.

This is a steam punk world that is a continuation of the modern prometheus, something that as humans we are closer to contending with more and more.

I think this is what makes the film so brilliant as its a an uncomfortable look at who and what we are but done in a truly brilliant way.

9/10.

Watched this today on Netflix and I have to say I enjoyed it. If you are looking for something that resembles Science Fact or is a Space action adventure then you won't find it here.

I guess you have to ask the question why set this story in space ??? The simplest answer would be to make someone the loneliest man alive would mean putting him 50 million miles away from everyone else.

This is also a concept film that forces you out of your comfort zone and attempts to put you in a place that is unrecognisable from what we are used to and that where anything could be possible, what is real and what is not real ??

At the end of it all what is real and what is important is something that at least one person eventually discovers while looking in completely the wrong place.

Visually the film was great, Sandler was excellent and Dano voiced his character well. Carey Mulligan while good and being a hugely important character is often left with little to do.

Does it all make complete scientific sense then no. For me I believe the beauty of the film reaches its maximum potential at its climax floating about in a purple cloud in the vastness of space 🚀🚀

The film keeps you guessing throughout and I was never sure how it would end, I guess for me the ending was a bit bland but the message it was trying to convey came through loud and clear.

I think your enjoyment of this film may depend on whether that message resonates with you.

On the other hand the message is mainly from one perspective which while being a poignant one may also alienate or isolate certain people from that connection.

I'd also like to point out that the synopsis for this movie is slightly incorrect which I believe is due to changes made in a very long post production period for the film.

If your in the mood for a slow burn yet meaningful film with dream like visuals give it a go.

7/10.

Well it was somewhere in between, i have to admit I don't like wrestling, i understand its all for fun and entertainment but ot also looks very silly.

Anyway Iron claw is the signature move of the patriarch of the family we see in the film. By using his claw like grip on a mans skull it leaves them in so much agony they have to tap out. Of course this is pretend and it looks very kooky it made me laugh. He passes this super move down to his wrestling children.

Unfortunately this is not a comedy, this is actually based on a true life and incredibly tragic story.

Its set in the late 70s to mid 80s and the look and feel of the film is great, the clothes and sets etc brilliant. For me this is about all the film got right.

Zac Effron bulked up a lot for this but it looked like he was wearing a prosthetic jawline and he seemed to have a constipated look on his face throughout the film and conveyed zero personality. He played the main character, the second eldest son. His brothers seemed to carry a lot more personality which was barely scratched upon, the story was about them but they were secondary to most of the story.

The Von Erich parents seemed to be 'of that time' , pushy, hard, emotionally disconnected, strict but a bit fair although I'm sure this was all watered down for the film.

Throughout the film i found I had gained little emotional attachment to any of the brothers and I felt their stories were undercooked and toneless.

I had a greater understanding of the Von Erichs after reading wikipedia than I did watching this film, the film also chooses to leave out 1 brother and a few other details.

I'm also sure I wasn't supposed yo be laughing at what should be an intense emotional moment but of course ' The Iron Claw '......

Warriors, The Fighter, Rocky are all brilliant films about combat sports and garnered a larger emotional response from me and nobody died in them films. How can that happen ??.

For such a great looking film I'm not sure how it ended up being so flat, unemotional and at times more like a parody.

I think a decent documentary would do the Von Erichs and their tragedy more justice.

6/10.

The basic premise is all about surviving a plane crash in the ocean.

The film is mildly entertaining but suffers from wooden acting, mistimed dialogue, plot holes and strange decisions.

Its not as bad as the 1 out of 10's i am seeing and i think i can read into the sarcasm of the 10 out of 10's...

Luckily i didnt pay for it, my friend did, id probably be disappointed at paying for it, having said that its no that bad in terms of production.

The crash and underwater scenes are decent enough and not very cheap and dodgy CGI.

I think with a more carefully thought out plot amd some improved acting it may have been a lot better.

In the end its just a pretty generic and often cheesy disaster film.

5/10.

The first 30 mins of the film are great, the premise is an interesting one and its well shot.

Once the film gets to the courtroom it becomes slow and fairly uninteresting and dare I say it, poor...

The acting during the courtroom scenes becomes a bit farcical, the prosecutor hams it up to distraction. The judge is wooden and disinterested and the whole thing is trivial.

In and amongst the courtroom scenes are attempts at family drama that fall a bit flat.

Bravo however to the dog who put in a mighty performance, the real star of the show alongside the young lad who was good throughout.

The ending is what you would expect nothing unique no twists but also fairly uneventful. You could shorten this by 30 minutes and it would not matter. In fact take 30 minutes of wishy washy melodrama and add 30 minutes of great cinematography on location and I'd have been happier.

Not a bad film but falls short in many areas.

6/10.

It is very rare that I will give a film a 9/10. For me this film was cinema, it was filmed beautifully and majestically.....BUT that's not enough for a film/movie.

What you want, what you really really want is Barry Keoghan to be surrounded by an outstanding supporting cast.

This can't be a 10/10 and its not supposed to be. Im not sure this well get the populist vote which is a shame but please give Barry Keoghan an award for something.

How do you play a Scouse but pure in control Scouse measured Scouse?? And make it real ?? Even Stephen Graham can't do that and he is Scouse....

Please beware though.. not a family/kid friendly film. Not sure of the rating as i watched on Amazon but I'd say 15/16 + or more.

U16s won't understand it properly plus there is nudity so U16s stay away. Adult film only.

Why is this on Amazon and not the cinema ?? Mental...

Yeah but just film of the year deffo !!

9.6/10.

The first Hunger Games with Jennifer Lawrence was a very good film. It was fresh and new and Katniss Everdeen was a great movie character.

A side character in that trilogy ( 4 films ) was President Snow, this film is a prequel to the original films showing him in his youth before his rise to power.

The film is split into 3 parts.

Part 1 - is an introduction to Snow and his friends/fellow students and also the tributes of the 10th hunger games.

Part 2 - is the 10th Hunger games Part 3 - is how Snow starts his journey to becoming the looming dictator he becomes in the OT.

This is why the film really fails to deliver.

Part 1 is lacking in development and introduces way to many characters although the focus here is Snow and Lucy Gray Baird, her first name is ' Lucy Gray ' not just Lucy.

Played by Rachel Zegler she is the antipathy of Katniss, her strengths are singing and charm centred around an aloof but colourful character.

Of course Snow is mesmerised.

Part 2 centres around the 10th Hunger games where viewing figures and interest have been waning to the point this could be the last. Thats right the central part of this show is just how lacklustre the Hunger Games have become. A fairly small old building is the arena for this and yes its dull and boring, this makes what should be a beautiful climax, just seem lifeless.

Part 3 is a long winded prologue covering punishment for Snow his ostracism from the capitol and then his return... by this point however you may have stopped caring.

Viola Davis and Peter Dinklage appear fleetingly, Viola steals the limelight every time. Tom Blyth is good as Snow, a snakey but transient young man. Zegler uses her singing talents well but is more of a romantic supporting interest than a winning hero.

Dinklage I felt was underused as were the majority of the rest of the cast.

Overall there is an interesting story there but it wasn't told in an interesting way and I can't think of any really good or stand out re watchable moments. It was very studio set/green screen throughout and it felt like there was little chemistry between the actors.

A 5 or 6 out of 10 for me.

Obviously im only 2 episodes in and so far this has been decent.

After an action opening, things slow down as we are introduced to new characters as well as a younger version of another character from Kong-Skull Island. During the 2 episodes there isn't much in the way of monsters and action until the end of each episode, the show loves a cliff hanger which is very 'comic book'.

I think its a great idea having a father and son playing the same character at different ages but in 1953 Shaw would i presume be around 23 but in 2014 Shaw would therefore be 84, i presume there is a reason for him looking younger, Kurt Russel is 72 but looks 65 at most.

The CGI so far has been very good from the little we have seen and i like the location filming. Everything is well made and the acting is decent.

The story telling so far is a bit back and forth across different years but luckily the show tells us the date/year so we don't get too confused although the stuff in the 50s wasn't as true to the time as i'd have liked but enough for you to get a feel of the era ( music is helpful of which is lacking ) The soundtrack for me is what lets the show down and is a bit of a missed opportunity, the lack of songs of the time plus a rather generic soundtrack makes things a little dull at times.

Like I said im only 2 episodes in so I expect more monsters but I think the titular character of Monarch will be the focus of the series rather than the monsters.

Lets wait and see 6.5/10... So far...

Gareth Edwards certainly knows how to create visually stunning cinematography and if a film was just down to how good it looked it would get a 10.

There was lots of VFX but also some great on location scenes which for me us the way films like this should be made.

The main issues with the film were poor plot points, muddled technical ideologies, and some nonsensical parts which too me right out of the moment. The first half works a lot better than the second half as the story builds but the second half creates way to many glaring contradictions.

When building a Sci Fi world you can make up a lot of things and do what you like with them but at least keep the consistency and avoid glaring plot holes. This should have been an 8 or 9 out of 10 if they had followed the science and reality they had created all the way through to the end.

The film takes itself way to seriously for it to end up like a schlocky b movie.

The ideologies were interesting and the human element to it all was a great driving force leading to a rather weak and transient climax.

This film is definitely worth watching just fir the visuals its a shame other elements let it down enough, for me, to make it a vit of a disappointment.

6/10.

I watched this mesmerized from start to finish.

The cinematography and ambience were 10/10 throughout. Such a well shot film.

Everything from start to finish was pretty much perfect.

I was stolen a resolution !!

From the first scene it was apparent the lead ( fassbender ) was suffering a mental illness or delusions as a secret agent type killer.

The whole film from that point plays out like a normies idea of what a killer looks like.

It was genius but it ended without clarity or resolution just a percentage.

I am 100% sure someone high up decided to change the actual ending.

Through fear of what though ??

This is definitely not The Boys although it is set in the same universe and setting.

This is more aimed at YA audience, I am late thirties but I still found it enjoyable. I've watched five episodes so far and the story is slowly starting to unravel. I think its best to have watched The Boys first to understand whats going on in this series properly. This series unravels very slowly which I presume is because you should already have a feel for the backstory already.

While this series is less gritty than the Boys it still has a lot of the tropes that made The Boys popular. Blood, Gore, Sex, Nudity, Drugs e.t.c. There are many abrupt, made to shock scenes that some may find too much.

In this series however things are slightly more cartoonish or silly.

The characters are all at High School/College age and there is a heavy focus on young peoples issues. From sexuality, personal, image, emotions, drugs and alcohol. Basically your typical YA type stuff. Then there is the more deeper stuff like mental health and self harm etc, although nothing too overbearing or deep, more of a relatable nod

Some characters are likeable others not so much but over five episodes there is a fairly balanced approach to them even though they start off in that stereotypical way.

Nothing is too preachy but there is a lot of things here that some will call progressive although for young people I imagine all this stuff is just the norm. There are different races, different sexualities and gender swaps

What isn't the norm, is the entire super hero/villain premise and like The Boys its not all black and white.

There is an exuberance of creativity at play here which is where I give the most credit. The story ( so far ) has been slow to get to an actual point although after the fifth episode its now making headway.

The acting is pretty good, there is no real stand out characters here though although two are slowly coming to the top of the pile.

The show has definitely grown on me rather than other shows that blew me away first episode then fizzled out.

7.5/10.

The Action and the stunts in this film are 10/10, the M. I: franchise has managed to nail this to the highest degree. Combining real stunts within both real and CGI backdrops that look and feel brilliant.

Tom Cruise has shown us all his stunt collections over the years as well as extensive behind the scenes footage, i can't fault any of that and as usual some stunts are tense and others are fun and others are comical.

I have 2 issues with the film however ....... The first being that its a 2 parter, there was enough in that first part to resolve the film completely.

The second was the plot, it all got a bit silly. Chasing 2 halves of a key combined with rogue AI.

An issue more so was how for some reason the IMF seemed to forget the last 25 years of spy work. They react to the situation like its something they havnt seen over and over before ( under a different guise ). Like this is something completely new because its an AI. It turns out its just the same as usual, something you would expect Hawke and co to know full well.

At times it felt like I was watching a previous cruise film called Knight and Day. A comedic action adventure about a spy and a female civilian, i did enjoy that film though.

I enjoyed this film as well but ive now got to watch part 2. This has to continue with the weak and silly plot, the slightly comical scenarios, maybe have bigger and better stunts while no doubt chasing/protecting a brass key with LEDs on the handle.

A lot of the acting throughout is very tongue in cheek and bordering parody combined with other scenes tonally, deadly serious.

As an action film its a 9/10 with a 5-6/10 plot, especially for a Mission Impossible film that have often been reasonably clever.

Overall a 6.5 out of 10 for me a better plot and it would be an 8/10.

This film is based on a book which I've not read, i don't know how it all comes across in the book but in the film it comes across as a character study about a man with highly functioning autism and social awkwardness in a corporate office environment.

Im not Autistic but know a few people who are and when I go digging this is how they describe it, kind of...

Overall it makes a pretty interesting study into how this would work in an office environment from the perspective of an autistic person. There is however a big part if this which is the ' room '. I don't want to spoil anything by giving away too much detail but it adds the overall theme in an interesting way.

This is not a comedy as such so don't go expecting ' The Office '. This is a quirky drama and character study, the office elements provide a backdrop but they seem a bit exagerated or strange in comparison to a regular office environment. This only adds to the quirky feel of the film.

I found its fairly short runtime engaging and interesting but overall maybe lacking an overall message or ideology, instead opting to show us one mans slightly warped point of view.

I think if you know what to expect before you watch, you may not come out so disappointed like some of the other reviewers.

I think it sits somewhere around a 6 or 7 out of 10.

Oppenheimer is a decent film about an important subject that gets bogged down with minor politics, we also have the nolan cut... But a nolan cut with a poor pay off.

Much of the film is full of close ups and facial expression but little else in the way of cinematography that we have come to enjoy in other Nolan films.

The sound was good however and is purposefully jarring. The whimsical early soundtrack is slowly obliterated by orchestral, human or explosive rumblings. Everything utilised to nail down the power of the bomb.

When the story follows the bomb and the challenges Oppenheimer had running the project it makes interesting viewing. The film constantly cuts between court like sequences set 8 or 9 years later. The problem with these cuts is that the pay off was of minor importance to the overall story.

The acting was good, Murphy and Depp did a great job its a shame their rivalry was pushed under the carpet while also being at the forefront of the finale. Its difficult to try and create drama over such a small footnote in the titular characters life and then infer it rather than show it.

The costumes and sets and the overall appearance of the film was very good and pulled me in a lot its just a shame the story wasn't as strong nor gripping as it could have been as well as failing to even mention many aspects of the real life project.

7/10.

After watching the entire series you have to ask yourself why ??

A trip down memory lane and sentimental nostalgia ?

No new ideas ?

To take advantage of the films past success.

It was probably all of the above....

The series never really defines the story its trying to tell and instead presents us with the different characters from the original film going through the struggles of the cost of living crisis currently occuring in the UK.

This makes for pretty depressing viewing, as did the original film ( the death of industrial Britain ). So episode after episode I was waiting for the pay off instead each episode was a slapstick scenario devoid in humour patchworked together with no core idea !

While the finale was a fairly emotional one it was also dour and depressing leaving you with very little idea on what the actual point was. Where The Full Monty film gave us a glimmer of hope this series leaves us devoid of any. It also does a great job of leading you down one path then diverting all its direction into another then another like a TV show suffering from ADHD.

You could easily cut out half of this, add an hr and an actual story and end up with The Full Monty instead we get The Half Monty

Were they waiting for series 2 ?? Probably...

5/10.

I liked Ari Asters 2 previous films a lot more than i liked this. Hereditary and Midsommar while being Allegorical also had linear story telling, they were both ponderous yarns but a lot more simplistic in comparison to Beau Is Afraid.

To try and describe this film would never do it justice as it plays with your inner dialogue as much as it does with what you see visually. Visually its a great film however but tries to cram too much into its 3 hr runtime.

It does however have a start middle and end.

The first hr tells us of Beau's fears and anxieties and how is barely coping with it all, this is all done in an exaggerated abd surreal way which is unnerving claustrophobic and plays into your own fears.

The middle section if the film shows us how Beau is practically forced to go on a journey to confront these fears and ( at least try to ) discover why he is the way he is. He imagines himself without fears and limitations and how his life could have been different although of course this is quashed once again by his fear and anxiety and even his thoughts and dreams become a futile exercise.

The final part of the film is him figuring out the 'why'. For me this is the weakest part of the film, it becomes apparent that a lot of it is sexual repression and a fairly loveless relationship with his single mum and the missing masculine father figure in his life. His past highlights seem to be based on the medications for all his ailments ( genuine or pyschosematic).

When it comes down to it, while the film has a certain thematic charm the issues and fears Beau has been plagued with all his life come down to anxiety and fear of nothing other than what he has created in his mind. He has put his own limitations on his life suffering guilt for very little.

Of course mental illness and anxiety are not to be taken lightly and the film highlights in an exaggerated and nuanced way what this may possibly feel like.

Overall the message is caught up in art and creativity that both add and take away from the overall experience leaving it slightly convoluted but visually very effective.

This is a psychological drama with the horrors of the mind but its messy.

6.5/10.

Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight ?

Thats a Batman quote, that movie and Nefarious are the polar opposites in film making. Batman was an over theatrical cinematic wonder this was a TV movie.

I enjoy a good TV movie now and then but the Devil is in the detail and this one was lacking.

Visually its bland and almost artificial like a stage play with backdrops but slightly better ones.

Performance wise i didn't hate it but Sean Patrick Flannerys over exaggerated style for both the titular character and the possessed were barely distinguishable so they often used a Gollem esque transition to make the point.

Most of the film is set in a prison interview room with strange green walls ?? Dr and patient conversing or should I say interacting. The doubting Dr at the mercy of a Demonic entity who likes to talk... A lot.

The premise of the film is not a bad one and I enjoyed it for that part although if it was a short story it would have worked better. Without all the waffle it could have made an interesting 1 hr long Black Mirror episode or a 30 minute episode of Inside No 9 or The Twilight Zone.

Instead its a cinematic non starter with a semi decent premise, underwhelming performances and a lot of theological preaching with no real meat or bones to it all to connect or hit home.

Im not sure I'd call it propaganda as mentioned by other reviewers but there is definitely an anti abortion and pro faith sentiment. Whenever whenever you have stories that mention El Diablo that is often the case as it ties into the religious myths and tales of old and this film never pretends that its anything other than a supernatural thriller.

6/10 is generous but it kept me interested until the end.

I found this an enjoyable fun watch and a mildly interesting one, the story of Nike and the greatest basket ball player ever alongside the greatest ( or biggest selling ) shoe ever made, Micheal Jordan and the Nike Air Jordan.

Matt Damon plays the lead, the apparant brains behind the Micheal Jordan signing closely followed by his buddy Ben Affleck the C. E. O and co founder of Nike. Id say it was a mistake to put a white nike shell suit jacket with shoulder pads on him though. At one point he looked like Mr Square from the Mr Men.

Matt Damon doesn't really look like Sonny Vaccaro but he makes up for it by just being loveable Matt Damon which I imagine is a watered down version of the man himself from things Ive read.

Affleck fits the role of Phil Knight well although Im not an expert on him at all but it all feels right here.

Jason Bateman plays Rob Strasser who According to Nike was the brains behind the Jordan deal. Here though the story focuses on Sonny Vaccaro as the main man.

Regardless of who did what and when the film flows nicely and presents all the roles played in varying degrees and accuracy according to who you believe.

It all flows nicely without getting too heavy and it has its moments of humour, emotion and pop culture and a really good soundtrack that fits the narrative well, its 80s but not in your face ( most of the time ) the music might just have been my favourite part.

It was also nice to see Chris Tucker again in a less comedic role, Daman Wayans has a small part playing a very important man in this saga, George Raveling.

Viola Davis and Julius Tenon who play Michaels parents look and feel great as well. Im not sure who played Micheal Jordans back but I presume image rights were not available for him ??

Its a well made film in the mould of say Moneyball but with less intensity and a bit more light hearted and fun. Don't expect super depth and 100% accuracy as like most history, nothing is ever truly accurate.

If I wanted to watch a documentary then id watch a documentary.

Good film would have been 7/10 but the soundtrack made me give it an 8. Music is important !!!