MartianTom

I consider myself something of a cineaste, and I've seen everything there is to see: the outstanding, the good, the bad, the ugly, the indifferent. I know a great movie from an average flick or a pile of crap.

Until now, I've always thought that the best series ever produced have been 'Six Feet Under', 'Peaky Blinders', 'Manhunt: Unabomber' and 'Mare of Easttown.' But now this comes along and blows it all out of the water in just one single short season.

Everything about this hits the spot. The actors, the performances, the story-line, the pace, the script, the direction, the cinematography... even the decision to film it all in magnificent 'film-noir' monochrome.

This is how it's done, folks - pure and simple. I don't need to say any more. Just go bathe in this cinematic and dramatic brilliance.

I was looking forward to an absorbing and intelligent dramatisation of the events leading up to the infamous interview, where a Royal prince hammered several more nails into the coffin of the mystique of Royalty. I was looking forward once again to seeing this over-privileged, distasteful person squirm and sweat (which, of course, he doesn't do!) under the spotlight of a properly loaded interrogation.

Instead, I got 30 minutes (as much as I could manage) of undergrad level 'clever-clever' visual stylisation, grossly overwrought 'acting' between a bunch of 'I'm going to be best in this scene' luvvie-duvvie prima donnas (Gillian Anderson aside, respectfully), and a script which couldn't decide whether it wanted to be sub-'The Thick of It' satire or third-rate wet Sunday afternoon drama.

Just awful. The actual interview is better than this, and that's excruciating enough. I'm sure attention-deficit smartphone-fixated Gen Zers will love it.

I think this film deserves a bit more of a positive appraisal than its low score suggests it's getting. Several reviews - even the better ones - have noted that it's 'slow' or 'slow-moving'. Well, it is if you come into it expecting something along the lines of a Jason Statham or Liam Neeson hitman flick. But in terms of what this really is - a character study of a man facing up to mortality and the events that have shaped his life - then I think the pace is pretty much perfect.

I have to admit that I love films like this, where there isn't necessarily any need to keep on top of complex plot twists or location shifts, but where I can instead just settle down with a simple general story and follow the character wherever he leads me through it - and enjoy watching the true depth of his 'character' gradually emerge. I couldn't help but be reminded of Anton Corbijn's excellent 'The American', starring George Clooney. A very similar set-up: a hitman sent to a job that becomes a kind of holiday as well as a preparation for the ultimate task - but with a background sense of intrigue and suspicion about the whole situation, and who he can trust. Like that film, too, it needs an actor with a certain gravity to hold the attention. In this case, Ian McShane is the perfect choice.

I think, too, it deserves repeated viewings to appreciate both the subtle as well as the very obvious development of themes. Family is certainly important. The idea of a 'mother' always being there for certain characters, grounding them in the ordinary and mundane in particular ways, suggests the presence of meaningful connections in a world where they otherwise don't seem to exist any longer. And fatherhood, too. This comes out in Wilson's relationship with Gloria, and also with the young boy Max at the hotel - whose own father (and mother, come to that) is notably never seen, but only heard in snores or shouts. Max seems permanently abandoned to his own devices, usually sitting outside his parents' hotel room door playing alone. This set-up - with the friendship Max develops with Wilson - initially seemed unrealistic. How could parents be so neglectful of their child as to leave him alone and unattended for so much of the time - prey, say, to people like Wilson, who could so easily have entirely different motives? And if a child of mine ever came back to me and said that he'd won 30 Euros in a bet with a stranger on a beach, I think I'd do a bit more than simply suggest he give it back. As a plot device to show character depth, though, this relationship worked for me. It's clear that Wilson could, in a different set of circumstances and with a different career choice, have been a good father - and certainly more like the kind of father that Max (and, indeed, Gloria) needs. With this realisation, I think, we can't help but be sympathetic for Wilson - this rather lonely and isolated man, facing perhaps his final few years of life, unable to entirely relax into what he sees as a 'bit of a holiday' (we only see that black, heat-absorbing suit off once - in the spa pool scene), and demonstrating so much unfulfilled potential in other ways.

The climax, when it comes - and the long and gradual lead-up, I think, adds to its quick and sudden impact - is genuinely moving. Wilson is shown in all of his colours: the cold-blooded, unflinching killer... and the tender and vulnerable man: in essence, the loving father underneath it all. The years and experiences have broken through the emotional barriers he's striven to hold up for so long in order to do his job.

I'll definitely be coming back to this film. And I'd definitely recommend it to anyone who looks for more than just fast-paced blood and action for their 'hitman movie' satisfaction.

Once again (as so often nowadays, given the viewing demographics of sites like Netflix), you have to ignore the reviews from the Marvel generations. Easy enough to spot. Low ratings. Reviews that contain words like SLOOOW and BOOORING, with the extra vowels and capitalisations for added emphasis. This kind of language and typography seems to be the only response such 'reviewers' are able to muster, given their obvious limitations in other respects. I have ADHD, but my attention didn't waver from the moment I pressed 'Play'. I didn't even pause it to make a drink, I was so riveted.

Here is a film that jerks us out of our comfort zones and forces us to consider the lessons of history that, as the film's initial monologue makes plain, aren't the ones we're taught in school. Here is a film that reminds us - why do we constantly need reminding? - to look beyond labels and categorisations and go straight to the only one that will ever make any sense: human being.

Necessary viewing... in spite of what the kids might say.

...or have we created it already without actually realising it?

First of all, it's probably a good idea to discount any IMDb reviews that rate this film less than 5, because these will generally be from people (I've checked!) who either think this is paranoid conspiracy nonsense that would never be allowed to happen... or who simply don't want to imagine it happening because they're so deeply embedded in the 'world' the film portrays that it would undermine everything they have been brought up and conditioned to accept without question. Upton Sinclair once said 'Never expect a man to believe something if his salary depends upon his not believing it.' The same can be said for this. If your life is so connected now that you could not cope otherwise, you don't want anyone pointing out the serious downsides of what you're buying into. And before anyone pipes up with 'But we do have a choice', they need to really think about what they're saying. Okay... you can choose to opt out of the hyper-connected life, disable all of your social media accounts, disable the internet on your phone. Go on, then - do it.

Go on.

You have a choice.

Don't you?

Don't you?

So... maybe you don't, after all. At the time of my writing, this film was already seven years old. In seven years, the tech (and our dependence on it) has moved on enormously. Seven years ago, you didn't routinely see children as young as 7 or 8 going to school with smartphones. Now you do. At one point in the film, a medical technician mentions that chips are inserted into the bones of children at birth so that they can always be tracked. At that time, it was still a very far-fetched idea. Now, though - as the phone has become more and more an essential part of most people's lives - we have to ask how much longer it will be before that idea of chip insertion (at least in consenting adults in the early stages) happens. How much longer are we going to want to walk around all day effectively hindered - disabled, you might say - in our actions and movements by the need to hold onto a device? Just look around you now, when you go out. How many people do you see not interacting with their phone in some way... even if it's just to do that very old-fashioned thing and call someone up for a chat? Hardly anyone.

The film is good at showing how we've all be sucked in by the perceived benefits of this tech: instant access to information, wherever we happen to be (as long as there's good wi-fi or signal strength); being able to keep track of our loved ones at every moment of the day; being able to share every moment of our lives - the highs and lows - to hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people, most of whom we will never meet or know properly. The ironies are there in all of those 'benefits': the loss of privacy, the capability of being tracked wherever we go and whatever we do. Never before in history have the creations of a few dozen middle-class guys in Silicon Valley been able to effectively control the thoughts, actions and lives - and yes, I do mean control - of billions of people. Aldous Huxley had it so right when he prophesised that we won't feel repressed by this level of surveillance, or by the tools through which it happens. Instead, we'll willingly accept them, pay large sums for them, cosset them, love them... and never be able to imagine our lives again without them.

If you don't believe that, then try looking at it like this. If your government made it mandatory for every person in the country to have a bracelet or anklet permanently attached to them so that their every move could be tracked and registered, wouldn't there be an outcry about invasion of privacy, and violations of civil liberties and human rights? Sure there would. But what do we have with the smartphone? And not only does it track our moves, it also contains all of our personal data, financial details, medical conditions, thoughts and feelings, beliefs... and those of our contacts, too. And we think it's great, and don't offer up any resistance at all. Shows how remarkably well this has all been sold on us, doesn't it? And 'sold' is the right word, given the business model of all the social media platforms. Your attention is their income. As the old saying in Silicon Valley goes: 'If you're not paying for the product, you are the product.'

The crunch will come, of course, when the networks shut down or are taken over - as has more recently been dramatised in the excellent 'Leave The World Behind'. What happens when hackers, intent on chaos, domination and destruction, take control? What happens when the satellites are taken out? What happens when the 'connection' suddenly... vanishes? As the Ethan Hawke character says so pertinently in the latter film: 'Without my cell phone and GPS, I'm lost. I'm a useless man.' These are fictions, of course. But what is good fiction for if not to offer us the ability to reflect on the facts of our own lives?

Thinking people everywhere - including those, like myself, who may have initially bought into all of this because of the positives it seemed to offer - will see this as a warning to us all. What we're embracing here could just be checkmate on humanity.

Everyone else will just carry on, dismissing people such as myself - who have chosen not to have a smartphone - as dinosaurs. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm tech-savvy and internet-savvy. But solely on my own terms, during my own set times, when I'm at home on my PC. Otherwise, I'm free of it. Free to enjoy my privacy. Free to go for long walks and experience the real world, to daydream, to think. To disengage completely. And the clues are there in some of the responses I got from friends when I shut down my social media accounts. 'What's wrong? Where are you?' The subtext is often 'What have you got to hide?'

Nothing. Rather, I have something very important and precious to preserve. My privacy.

And my sanity.

I was initially intrigued by the premise of someone faking their own death in order to make off with hundreds of millions of dollars: the level of planning, deception and manipulation involved in being able to carry off such an exit scam. And then there was the idea of seeing all these entitled young, not-so-clever-after-all, ripped-off people crying into their $500 a bottle champagne as they recounted their woeful tales of losing (almost) everything.

But ultimately, I found the spectacle so nauseating that I had to turn off a half-hour before the final - so I gather - abrupt, providing-no-answers ending.

I suppose Tong was the one who really got under my skin. The poor thing - left with no choice but to sell his apartment for $400k. And then, by his own admission, being so anxious to get rich quickly ("No one wants to get rich slow") that he greedily invests all of it into something that looks like its going to leave him never having to work again. The long, lingering shots of his mournful face as he talks about his anxiety and panic attacks (oh, how my heart bleeds!) when he realises that all of that money might be gone... they were really the only uplifting moments for me.

I've no sympathy for any of these people. Basically, I hope they have been scammed out of everything.

Maybe it'll teach them a little sense of proportion and humility.

Somehow, though, I doubt it.

Well... this certainly isn't one for the kids. You'll know the reviews from them, because they'll say things like "WTF?" or "Sooo boooooring","Dumb ending", etc. So, they'll have quickly been distracted back to their phones - which isn't a thousand miles removed from what the film is actually about. It won't have been the 'disaster' movie they were expecting. But it certainly is one. The true 'disaster' it depicts lies beneath the surface: the disaster of the world we've created, and are destroying with the kind of passive indifference to things that is embedded in our throw-away, junk food, instant gratification lifestyle now - a passivity that the advent of smartphone culture and 'instant connectedness all day everywhere' has exacerbated hugely. The irony of all of that, of course, is that as we have become more 'connected', and now that we have instant access to more information than we could ever have dreamed about, the more 'disconnected', divided and ignorant we are. "Is that a deer?" the girl says at one point. Without her phone available to check it, can she be sure anymore?

So, here we have the seemingly worldy-wise, ultra-smart, ultra-trendy, ultra-connected, well-educated and well-off family, heading off for a relaxing weekend in a luxurious rental home in the Hamptons. A weekend that, we guess, will just be about time at the beach, time by the pool, time getting soused, time to try to avoid talking about those unspoken things that really need talking about... and hours and hours of doing what they do every day: mindlessly and passively scrolling through content. The money is, as it always has been, one form of insulation. But the ironic 'breakdown of connection' becomes very plausible with the actual loss of connection they experience when all of the networks go down. Suddenly they simply have no idea what's going on, or why, and are isolated in this increasingly strange buffer zone between their actual reality and the virtual reality that has hitherto fed them information. If anything, I think this is one weakness of the plot - that the downing of the networks doesn't have a more drastic impact on them than it probably would in reality. I've often thought and argued that it would only need some enemy invading power to knock out our smartphone networks to lead people en masse into total mental crisis and meltdown. Not just Gen Zers, but also those in the Boomer generations who've become hooked (subtly coerced into using would be a more salient term) on the gadgetry. Such a large and vital part of their life is suddenly not there. No TikTok. No YouTube. No WhatsApp. No Instagram. No porn or dating sites. How would they possibly cope? Heaven forbid... would they actually have to listen to music properly instead of idiot-scrolling it? Would they have to read books? Would they have to daydream, imagine, create? Would they have to have uninterrupted conversations? Would they have to pay attention at last?

That aside, though, the film examines those issues very well, and with some excellent examples of the 'disengagement' we are experiencing. The idea, for instance, that we can simply take over someone else's home - then be shocked and disconcerted when they turn up to seek shelter in it because of being stranded. Whose property is it? Who has the most rights? Why should we offer sanctuary in a crisis to the people who are our own hosts? Then there's the disengagement with the natural world. I love the scene where the mother and daughter are standing outside the cabin surrounded by dozens of deer simply looking at them. The sense of menace in it - even though it's simply a herd of largely benign and (previously) shy fellow creatures. The women are so freaked at this turning of the tables - animals looking at them for a change, instead of the other way around in zoos, etc - that all they can think of to do is scare them away. Maybe there's an element of white liberal guilt, too, showing up in it and confronting them. Perhaps that's giving them too much benefit of the doubt, though.

Another scene I hugely enjoyed - a real PMSFL moment, as the kids would say - was the huge traffic jam caused by those hundreds of driverless Teslas all slamming into one another on the highway back into the city. Such a symbolic scene, too - encapsulating the 'lemming-like' nature of our own lives as we become more and more sucked into the 'Bladerunner' dystopia of Big Tech - controlling, as it does, pretty much everything we do. Everything. From the first iPhone onwards, in 2007, it's crept up and crept up... and now it's almost completely consumed us, like semi-conductor quicksand. The generations coming up now will never be able to know a life without the gadget either permanently in their pocket or bag, or in their hand. Like diabetics who can't go anywhere without their insulin and their candy bars, they won't be able to function without the phone. And as that scene so neatly demonstrates, without any other form of guidance in our lives - nothing else to steer us in the direction we're supposed to take - then we'll just crash. In that sense, the penultimate scene showing the actual destruction of New York is superfluous, really. The seeds of destruction are right there, in our hands - and yet we don't view them as such, of course. We view them as miracles, liberators, enablers.

People often cite Orwell as the prophet for a forthcoming repressive, authoritarian society based on mass-surveillance. But Aldous Huxley was the one who actually had it right. We won't regard these objects as facilitators of oppression, mind-control and social engineering. Instead, we'll embrace them, love them, be willing to spend huge sums on them. And we won't be able to imagine ever living our lives without them.

That's the true 'disaster' at the heart of this story. That's what we need to take from it.

I wonder how many will?

I've always been a fan of Denzel Washington and have always thought that he was the perfect choice to play Robert McCall in these films. He brings gravitas to the role, and the sense of hidden depths that's so essential for such a complex character: the quiet, peaceable, intellectual, supportive and humble man on the surface - one who's always ready to help the more vulnerable, from a co-worker trying to get fit to young women being exploited by sex traffickers... and then, on the other side of it, the calculating and ruthless - but nevertheless principled - assassin. Denzel has that ability to hold it all together in one, and he does it seemingly effortlessly. It was most evident in the first film - still my favourite of the three. The second trod similar ground with the plot, and whilst it seemed a bit weaker than the first one, it still worked well enough for me for repeated viewings.

I came to this one with mixed expectations. A strong part of me hoped for something like with the Bourne films, in which each new outing brought an improvement on the last. The premise of Denzel taking on the Camorra added to that - in spite of some misgivings about how this man, almost ten years older than he was in the first film, would be able to handle such a huge and lethal adversary - and on their home territory.

Sadly, my misgivings were justified. It was a combination of factors: sloppy writing, poor character development, and plot elements that we've seen so many times before. Yes, they were in the earlier Equalizer movies, too - but at least they didn't come across as too obviously formulaic, and Denzel still had enough heft to bring something out of the character. Here, though, I could feel my enthusiasm waning after the first twenty minutes. How he just happens to show up in the place where he is, as is repeated throughout the film, "supposed to be", and with a serious bullet wound - and then to be found by the one decent cop who won't turn him in on suspicion, and then tended by the one decent doctor who won't do likewise. Then the predictable trip back to health again, the predictable befriending by a younger woman, the predictable allying himself to the cause of an oppressed people (shades of 'The Magnificent Seven' here)... and the predictable denouement. Except here, the action scenes seemed by-the-book and ordinary rather than, in the earlier movies, well-orchestrated and dynamic. It was just Bob McCall going through the motions before finally hanging up his stopwatch and settling down to his much-needed retirement.

So, that's the end of the line, is it? All the Mafia bad guys dealt with and scared away now? McCall's in town, so don't come McCalling here again anytime soon? We've got a new sheriff, even if he is now claiming his pension? Just daft.

It's sad that it had to end this way. But there it is. I'll stick with the other two in future and pretend this one just didn't happen.

I hope we see plenty more of Denzel, though, in these later years of his career. He's always watchable.

And he needs better films than this to really get his teeth into.

If you thought that nuclear war, climate change or AI represented the biggest threats to the world - think again. That's the message of this gripping documentary that tells the story of the most daring and audacious bank heist in history - perpetrated not by a bunch of masked figures with automatic weapons and getaway vans, but by a small group of sophisticated hackers and other hired fixers, and started by a simple malware attachment in an email. They got clean away with less than 1/10th of the billion intended. But that's still a vast amount of money for a single job, and more than enough to fund future and increasingly sophisticated crimes.

And if that's what a small group of criminal hackers can do, think what a nation state can achieve if it wants to bring down the entire financial, transportation, communication, energy, industrial, commercial and other essential utility infrastructures of its enemies - essentially to make them grind completely to a halt, putting millions or billions of people at risk. Then look at the world as it is now, with the increasing east-west polarisations of the major powers in the new Cold War. Every reason to be very afraid indeed.

Essential viewing.

Actually, you can leave the last two words off the title of this review, and the remainder will say enough. Huge ones!

Ah... once again, I was conned by the 'above 6' rating on IMDb. All of those above 5 can really only have been given by reviewers for whom computer games or Marvel films give a satisfying level of dramatic engagement and plot complexity.

To be fair, I've always rather liked Russell Crowe as an actor, feeling that he always brings a certain gravitas to his roles. He was certainly the best thing in this film - apart from The Cult's 'She Sells Sanctuary' on the soundtrack at the beginning. Sadly, though, even an actor of his quality couldn't save this abysmal mess - the product of a juvenile script and a director who thought that some whizz-bang CGI set pieces would make up for lack of plot, character development, and just about everything else. Every cliche you could expect was here - including the 'jump scares' which weren't 'jumpy' at all, given that we've seen them so many times before. Then the others, in predictable order: the possessed child, the slamming doors, the leaping cupboards, the bouncing beds. And why must demons always have that deep, guttural voice - part tenor, part wolf, part lion growling through a megaphone? How about an occasional castrato falsetto?

On the subject of characters - there wasn't a single sympathetic one amongst the whole lot. I just wanted all of them to die, and horribly - perhaps with the exception of Crowe's. The performances - apart from moments with Crowe's, and perhaps the boy's - were uniformly terrible. Who cast this lot? Who scripted their words? Who gave the whole thing the green light in the first place? As a drama, it's laughable. As a comedy, it's unfunny. I don't think it really knows what it is. Nor does anyone involved in it.

Give it a miss and watch the original 'The Exorcist' instead. Once you've seen that, you've seen all you need to - and you can leave rubbish like this to the kids.

I've followed the work of Martin McDonagh since his early days as the wunderkind of theatre, with plays like 'The Beauty Queen of Leenane' and 'A Skull in Connemara'. I was taken, as were many, by the imaginative capacities of the writer: the hilariously absurdist situations, the witty dialogue, and the sharp characterisations. So when he branched into films, I was eager to see the results.

On the whole, I haven't been disappointed. 'In Bruges' was a masterpiece. A cleverly-plotted dark comedy-drama with those trademarks of dialogue and characterisation. It eclipsed 'Seven Psychopaths', which was supposed to be his first big widescreen offering ('In Bruges' was actually, I think, a bit of a side project - McDonagh thinking of it as the B-side, if you like... or the lesser of a double A-side at most!). 'Seven Psychopaths' was okay, nonetheless. It felt a bit over-populated, though, with too many 'big stars' trying to shine. 'Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri' brought it back down to a more manageable handful of great characters. And even with massive stars like Frances McDormand, Woody Harrelson, Sam Rockwell and Peter Dinklage on board, it was evenly and brilliantly directed, with each player getting their chance to shine without necessarily outshining each other. Again, great dialogue and characterisation, and a clever and original story.

With that heritage to go on, and with a return to the triumvirate of McDonagh, Farrell and Gleeson - plus a return to the times and places of the earlier plays - I pretty much knew I was in for a rare treat with 'The Banshees of Inisherin'. For once - even before I'd seen so much as a trailer - I also knew that the hype was going to be right. All the dozens of award nominations, too. It all pointed in the right direction.

So... maybe I just had too much of a build-up over the years. Too many expectations. I feel a bit of a fraud actually, writing this review.... because I still haven't managed, in spite of four attempts now, to finish watching this film. It still sits there, on my hard drive, downloaded from YouTube early on when the price was still high (it had to be worth it, didn't it?), waiting to be finished. But to be honest, I really don't know if I can be bothered. I mean, there's only about 20 minutes to go - possibly including the end titles. Will I ever get there? Only, I think, if someone - here or somewhere else - can convince me that 'Ah... the best is yet to come. The ending will bring it all together, and make sense of the whole.' Will it? Really? And will it magically make the rest of the film 'better', somehow?

I don't know what to say. All the promise, with this writer and director at the helm and these two fine actors (among others in the film). I've never felt so profoundly disappointed. The elements are there: the absurdity, the setting, the darkness of the comedy in the drama. But it's like putting all the best ingredients together to make a fine hearty stew, with the result being tepid and tasteless, and full of hard lumps. The story is just daft. Utterly unbelievable. That someone with a special musical talent could destroy the ability to produce music by gross self-mutilation, and over something like a friendship that didn't seem to have any real basis, anyway. You can be thrown together in a small, tight and enclosed community for all of your life, and feel stifled by it and its people. But isn't that where the imagination comes forward and takes its place? As a musician myself, also living in a bit of a cut-off and narrow community... would I wilfully destroy my means of escape because a friend of mine is boring? Not just smash up my piano (that can be replaced), but cut off the fingers that enable me to play it in the first place?

I can, of course, understand the arguments saying that this needs to be seen as a metaphor for the struggles of creative and intelligent people in a world of dullness and stupidity. But for me, that still doesn't work here. The characterisation seems superficial to begin with. I didn't find myself feeling any kind of sympathy or attachment to any of them - except (and just about) the sister, Siobhán. She, it seems, is central. She can see the world beyond, and yearn for it - in spite of its dangers. She's well aware of the limitations of her environment and opportunities. But her story, which would be interesting, is overshadowed by the rest of it. It's like a mash-up of McDonagh's earlier plays, with some Beckett-like absurdism woven in - plus a liberal dose of Father Ted-like characterisation. It's in the dialogue, too. I worked for many years around older people from the Republic of Ireland, and never heard them speak like that - with 'fecking' used as just about every other word. It's funny for a while, but then just becomes tiring and stupid.

But maybe that's all a part of what this film seems to be trying to say too, in other ways. Everything, even language itself, becomes tiring and stupid, and full of cliches.

I've given it 5. I honestly don't know if that's too high or too low. It feels about right.

I'll wait on to see if someone can give me the incentive to watch those final minutes. Maybe, if I've nothing better to do - like unblock the sink, or wash the doormat - I'll muster the energy.

I can't help thinking it won't be worth it, though.

Well, you know... as someone who loved the original, but has hated every franchise episode since, I have to say I really enjoyed this. So I thought I'd try to bump the average rating up a bit. I was going to give it a 7.5, but as I can't do fractions here, I thought it only fair to round up instead of down.

How many of us over our lifetimes have felt aggrieved at the way money seems to sweep in and displace the known and loved for many previous generations? Neighbourhoods that become unaffordable to current residents due to gentrification schemes. Family businesses destroyed by faceless, distant corporations.

That's the subtext in this film. Here, the invading forces are the young, entitled, vacuous legions of social media 'influencers' who make more money in a couple of videos than you may have made in a year, or even a lifetime. The foodies, the beauty experts, the therapists... even those whose only 'skill' seems to be playing computer games, streaming themselves playing them, then lapping up the advertising revenue thanks to the hits from their millions of fans.

So when an expensive car-load of such young, newly-enriched people pitch up in a remote Texas town - full of their media-savvy arrogance, their empty assumptions, their instant judgements - and start acting like they own the place (so crass and gross is their sense of entitlement), I think I can be a forgiven for looking forward (vicariously) to the ensuing bloodbath. It's no spoiler to say that I'm not disappointed.

There are some great moments in this movie that made me laugh out loud. Not just the cutting and slicing, but the knowing nods to the obsessions of the smartphone age. When, for instance, Leatherface boards the busload of 'followers' with chainsaw revving, what's the first thing they do? Hold up their phones to film the spectacle to ensure their instant hits on Instagram, Youtube or whatever. I've actually myself witnessed a serious car crash, where a couple of bystanders stopped to take photos on their phone before even thinking of dialing emergency services or seeing if they could help anyone.

So... in my view, well worth the watch if you feel the same way about these things. And if you just simply enjoy a good, gory slasher movie with some excellent set pieces to gratify your appetite.

Other reviewers have mentioned the lack of sympathetic characters in this. But there is one. The only one in the whole movie who demonstrates real, genuine emotion.

You'll have to watch it to find out who.

I watched Minder obsessively from the very first episode, only giving up when Dennis Waterman left. And this has always been my favourite episode. I remember first watching it when it was shown on ITV in February 1982 - 40 years ago almost to the day - and it has always stuck with me. The plot is ludicrous - but somehow almost believable, given what we know about the lifestyles of rock and pop stars.

On top of that, it was one of my first experiences of the phenomenal acting talent of Richard Griffiths, who later went on to create the memorable role of Uncle Monty in 1987's 'Withnail and I' - a cult film to end them all.

This is 1980s TV at its funniest and best. And George Cole, of course - as ever - is on absolutely top form.

Happy memories.

I can't praise this too much. Excellent script, performances, period detail - and, even if it isn't based on something that actually happened (the Legat/von Hartmann story, that is), then it's highly credible. So much more believable than the Churchill 'Darkest Hour' confection, which strained truth in so many ways.

It's just what I like in dramas of this sort: slow-build, but then the tension ratchets up to the truly explosive finale.

The rest, as they say, is history.

One of the best wartime dramas for a while. Comparable to 'The Imitation Game.' Don't miss it.

It baffles me how this risible, deeply-unfunny nonsense ever got the green light. What baffles me even more is that the likes of Leonardo DiCaprio, Meryl Streep and Jennifer Lawrence (among others) agreed to put their names to it. I mean... they must have read the script first, surely? Could they not see that it was pure Thanksgiving bird?

Finally, what baffles me is that the writer and director of the very excellent 'The Big Short' could really have allowed himself to slip so far. That was a genuinely brilliant, subtly-satiric drama. By comparison, this feels like something dreamed up by a bunch of weed-silly undergrads who are so certain of their cleverness and comedic talent that they ignore the fact that they actually need to be clever and funny to more people than just themselves.

For a really good drama in the same genre, go to 'Deep Impact' every time. Even the unintentionally-hilarious, deeply stupid 'Armageddon' is better than this.

So much about this to like. And so much to dislike, too.

The sense of claustrophobia and creeping horror - essentially, the jeopardy - from the first Alien movie is very well conveyed. The set design and cinematography are both fantastic.

A few bum notes, though - and pretty much solely to do with the cast. Sean Harris (the token Cockney boy) over-acts to the point where his character becomes laughable. And Kate Dickie (the token Scotty) is hopelessly miscast. Every line she delivers falls flat - especially 'Wow! Fifty-two thousand. Makes Everest look like a baby brother.' Terrible acting.

Overall, not bad. Just needed some better cast members.

Much has already been written about the dumbness of the kid. Yes, this is true. In fact, I found a lot of the characterisation to be flawed. The drama also relied too heavily on contrived situations and coincidence.

Having said all of that, I nonetheless found it compelling - and watched it all in one whole-day sitting. The reason for this goes beyond the plot contrivances and characterisation flaws. It's because of the way our feelings and emotions are tested all the way through: how we come to like characters that we can also despise; how we can see ourselves in similar situations with similar tests of love, loyalty, morality, and senses both of right and wrong and of justice. These are universal themes and issues. They challenge us to look at ourselves and our motives, and to question them where necessary. That is what good human drama is about.

So, despite the many flaws, this is still very much worth the journey.

Brilliant performances from all concerned, too.

I won't give any spoilers, but personally I feel that the 'murder' plot was contrived and implausible. For me, though, the family drama that was played out was compulsive and truthful - so much so that it had me in tears at times. I cannot fault any of the performances, and Kate Winslet has probably produced a career-best here.

I'm glad to hear that Season 2 looks likely, and look forward to seeing how the character of Mare develops. She is certainly in very capable hands.

This is called a 'disaster movie' for a good reason.

It's a disaster.

Without giving anything at all away... all the familiar tropes are here. If you've seen turkeys like 'Battle: Los Angeles' and '2012', then you've seen this. Except even they had the benefit of good CGI catastrophe scenes. This can't boast any of those.

Shallow characterisation, plodding storyline, lousy dialogue... and, of course, lashings of sentimentality. Scenes that will make you squirm not with horror or amazement, but with pure embarrassment.

If you want to see a half-decent movie on a similar theme, go back to 'Deep Impact'.

Enough said.

I almost gave this a miss because of the low rating on here. I'm glad I chose to ignore that.

This, to me, is an extraordinary film. Slow-paced, yes. Lacking in action, yes. Scientifically-flawed, maybe. But the pace suited me fine for the playing out of an immersive emotional experience. Great performances, good writing (in spite of what some critics have said), good direction and cinematography... and altogether incredibly moving. A film about love, life and hope - important things to focus on in these unsettling times we live in.

Without giving anything away, I found echoes here of 'Contact', 'Ad Astra' and 'Gravity' - though without the latter film's daft ending.

Good job, George. I look forward to seeing it again.

Millennials and Generation Z (or Generation Smartphone) please note: this movie is absolutely required viewing.

I knew most of this stuff already - surveillance capitalism, etc. Facebook's 'contagion' experiments, Pokemon Go. It's stunning how easily we've been conned into accepting what the big tech power-brokers, and the companies who advertise with them, want us to accept and believe.

As Tristan Harris says at one point: "If you take a look around you, it seems like the world has gone crazy." As little as 15 years ago, you hardly ever saw anyone walking around with their heads glued to their phone. Now, it's unusual if you see someone WITHOUT a phone. People talk a lot about the realisation of an Orwellian surveillance dystopia... but Huxley was much closer to the mark in his predictions. We don't feel oppressed by these devices and systems. We feel liberated. If governments decreed that we all had to have electronic tags which recorded our every move, our personal details (including banking and medical), our contact details, our friend and relatives and their contact details, our thoughts, our feelings... there would, quite rightly, be a public outcry about the gross invasion of civil liberties. Instead... we have a system in which we not only gladly carry such devices around with us, but happily pay huge sums for them, buy nice covers for them, willingly use them at every available opportunity. We LOVE them. Without them, we'd be lost and broken.

Everything you think and feel, everything you post, everything you watch... it's all being recorded, registered, analysed.

You need to disengage from all social media. Then put the damn phone down. Then smash it.

The future of humanity depends upon it.

Jim Cummings is certainly going to be a force to be reckoned with, I think. Writer, director, star... and great in every role.

Okay, the storyline may be a little shaky, and the denouement a bit obvious. But boy, is it worth the ride for the performances, the set pieces... and the cracking dialogue. Rarely have I laughed out loud so much in a movie of this sort - and for all the right reasons.

It reminded me in many ways of Oren Uziel's fine 2017 bank heist movie 'Shimmer Lake'. Similar characterisation, similar dialogue sharpness, similar level of wit and comedy.

Keep going onwards and upwards, Jim Cummings. Greater things await with this level of writing.

I found this documentary overwhelmingly compulsive viewing. So much so that, in spite of the harrowing and distressing subject matter, I watched it three times on the same day.

This is an exposé of a psychopath, offering some insight into how their minds work. But it also has much to say about the current state of society, and the effect it can have on human relationships. Here is an 83-minute movie which is entirely composed of police videos, CCTV footage, text messages and Facebook posts: a whole life, a series of lies and three tragic (and arguably avoidable) deaths, most of which were available for public exposure and scrutiny from the very beginning.

As much as anything else, the movie serves as an indictment of the internet and social media age, where everything we do, think and feel is recorded for public consumption.

The underlying irony of this all is that if Shanann hadn't been using Facebook in the first place, she would never have met Chris Watts. She would never have borne his children. She wouldn't have died in so tragic and horrible a way. And neither would they.

Let this serve as a warning to all of you who love to portray your 'perfect' lives on social media platforms.

This is the truth behind the lies. The grim reality behind all of the smiles for the cameras.

I've read some respected film critics refer to this as a powerful character study of a person with a mental illness, or an illustration of how damaged loners can be dangerous to themselves and others if they're left untreated by society. Maybe this is how they read the movie from their educated, middle-class standpoint. Maybe millions of film-goers will think the same. If so, then (once again) I have good cause to worry about the impact this kind of film can have on society's perception of people with mental health problems. Goodness knows, it's bad enough already. So bad that people are being driven further and further into themselves, fearful of saying too much in case of the repercussions: stigmatisation, prejudice, bullying. One thing the film does get right, actually, is that society doesn't seem to care about such people. Unfortunately, content like this will probably make society care even less.

Great acting and cinematography. They're about the only good things I've got to say. Otherwise, it's a poor rehash of stuff that's already been done before and much better. And its exploitation of mental illness and misrepresentation of pathologies are unforgiveable.

I think it's best to ignore the reviews focusing on the bad science, and the way the movie disappoints as a sci-fi. Strip it back to what it essentially is: an allegorical tale about a man's attempts to 'connect' with the psychological legacy of his father, come to terms with it, then let it go and move on into life with a renewed sense of purpose. Once you accept that, then you can sit back and enjoy the spectacle as it plays out before you.

Having said that, using outer space to explore the inner space is nothing new. The movie I was most reminded of in this respect is 'Contact'. 'Solaris', too, comes to mind. I don't think this movie brings anything new to the idea, either. And I have to say that, by the end, I wasn't entirely convinced that the idea worked here. I wasn't persuaded by any sense of change in the central character. In fact, I wondered if it was really worth his while to go that far - whether the billions of miles across space, or the billions of miles of neurons inside his head - to reach the point that he did at the end. Did he go all that way to get to know the father he never knew before, only to find him not really worth knowing after all? My personal jury is still out - but I only left the cinema an hour ago. Maybe in the days to come, when I've allowed it to settle in a bit more, I'll change my mind. It may actually be worth another viewing soon, to see if there's something I may have missed.

So... 8 out of 10 for cinematography and performances (even though Tommy Lee Jones pretty much phoned his in!) and 6 out of 10 for story. That gives an average of 7. Not brilliant - but not bad, either. Intelligent film-making by Hollywood, at least.