radhrh

I'm not sure what I expected from John Cleese's Dinosaur Hour but what I was presented with was never the less disappointing. Take away the setting in a medieval castle, a cast of nuns and men in boller hats and off course all the cats and what you are left with is a chat show. Given Cleese was given a completely free hand and his comedy background it's reasonable to hope for a show which might not be broadly comical but was at least entertaining. One of the episodes was dedicated to talking with some American comedian I'd never heard of and another to the pompous snob, Stephen Fry who only seems to become more insufferable as time goes by.

I hope he doesn't make a second season.

The greatest threat to mankind and the natural world is not climate change, it is all out nuclear war. This would seem obvious but for some reason the BBC would rather push climate change propaganda these days.

Back in 1984 they had different priorities and while Threads can be viewed as a blatant CND recruitment drive it is never the less factually correct. The lead up to the eventual nuclear exchange is frighteningly salient today as Soviet Russia and USA fight over Iraq's oil fields leading to a regional conflict which inevitably goes nuclear then global. The more things change the more they stay the same.

Now available for free on YouTube.

Or so William Shakespeare wrote in his play The Merchant of Venice. But that was back in 1596 England. In 2020s USA however it seems the truth will be buried under a blizzard of lies. So The Fall of Minneapolis starts with the death of George Floyd, an habitual criminal and drug addict as he resisted arrest for attempting to pass fake $50 bills. This chapter of the movie has never before published police body cam footage. The subsequent chapters show the violent riots which followed including the abandonment of a police precinct, the autopsy report which found no evidence of suffocation but did find almost 4 times a lethal dose of fentanyl in Floyd's blood, the attempts by law enforcement and FBI to pressure the doctor who performed the autopsy to change it's conclusion, the sham trail where the chief of police repeatedly lies regarding the use of maximal restraint technique (MRT) which his officers are trained to use.

There isn't much new here, apart from the body cam footage and phone interviews with some of the wrongly imprisoned police officers involved. Candice Owens covered the same events in her documentary, The Greatest Lie Ever Sold and anyone who has paid attention will know much of what is documented here. However if the movie reaches just one blue pill normy then it will have been worth while.

Set in a single room with a cast of just eight Exam is a micro budget British movie that punches far above it's wieght. The set up is simple; six potential recruits are set a written exam to land a prestigious corporate job. However when the candidates turn over their paper they find only a blank page. No question, so what's the answer? They have 90 minutes to solve the puzzle which pretty much plays out in real time. What follows is a clever, tense, nervous ordeal as the candidates are eliminated one by one for breaking one or other rules of the test. It's mostly done quite well and it's refreshing to see a movie with a original concept that relies on clever writing and decent acting although the twist is fairly predictable.

..but at 180 minutes this is definitely a long film but after watching the veiwer is non the wiser. I remember a TV series years ago on the race to create the atom bomb which was far more informative especially regarding the technical issues.

Nolan's effort is squarely focused on Oppenheimer as a man, however even after three hours I didn't get much insight into him. He is shown as a communist adulterer but his brilliance as a scientist is strictly a tell not show afair.

The movie is certainly very well made, has an inch thick gloss coat and there are plenty of familiar faces yet it's style overshadowed the substance. For example several sex scenes get more screen time than the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which would be considered the money shot in other genres but here comes an hour before the closing credits.

Stylistically it's classic David Fincher with heavy handed nods to Fight Club including the almost constant internal dialogue of the protagonist. However the internal dialogue in Fight Club is entertaining but in The Killer it's simply repeating the same protentious mantras about only fighting the battles you are paid to fight and a warning against empathy. I wouldn't say it's boring but it is repetitive. Fastbender does a decent job but his character isn't very likable and there isn't much action, there's only one fight scene and that mainly takes place in the dark. I don't mind the slow burner approach however there has to be a pay off at the end but The Killer's ending is a huge damp squib.

On paper Reptile is right up my street. A gritty cop drama staring Benicio Del Toro, what's not to like? So it was with high hopes that I began to watch Reptile and my hopes were repaid in the first half hour with a decent set up for characters and plot. However the narrative starts to drift like a rudderless super tanker and after sixty minutes the movie is going nowhere and there's still over an hour to go. I reach for the remote and the movie gets the single star treatment.

Speaking of stars Benicio Del Toro is bad in this. He looks bored and frankly terrible, time has not been kind to Benicio I'm afraid. Has it only been five years since Sicario: Day of the Soldado? He looks 20 years older than he did back then. What have you been doing, Benicio?

The idea that a serial killer is actually a victim of demonic possession is not a new one. The Fallen ( 1998 staring Denzel Washington ) starts with a similar premise and indeed leads in the same inevitable direction. However the inevitability of the ending of Nefarious is it's greatest flaw. It's a shame as the rest of the movie is quite good. Both lead actors do a decent job however Sean Patrick Flanery steals the show with a tick ladened performance somewhat lacking in subtlety but never the less enjoyable. This is basically two guys talking and as such the script needs to be top notch, which it is. I found myself leaning forward in my seat on many occasions I was so engrossed in the word play. Such a shame about the ending though, I really think they could have done a lot better with just a little thought.

Mr. Inbetween is an Australian dark comedy focusing on a small time violent criminal, Ray Shoesmith. It takes a slice of life approach and each episode is only half an hour long so it's easy to binge watch a whole season in an evening. It's based on a movie titled The Magician in which a documentary film maker follows a Sydney hitman which also stared Scott Ryan.

We follow Ray as he collects debts, beats up young hoodlums, takes his 8 year old daughter to see his sick brother, attend anger management meetings, hang out with his girlfriend, walk his dog, and kill innocent people. The problem is Ray's a violent psychopath so it's difficult to like him. He has some twisted code of ethics but in the end of the day this is a guy who will happily shoot a guy and bury him in a shallow grave or else chop up the body. A second issue is the police never show their face. It's difficult to see how a violent criminal embedded in the underworld never has any contact with law enforcement. There isn't even the obligatory bent copper on the take. It's still a good show though just not as good as some of the reviews would suggest.

An interesting premise doesn't necessarily translate to a good movie. It takes a lot more than that and I'm afraid this low budget Canadian indie movie demonstrates that. I'm reminded of the old news room cliche; it's not about the who or the where or the when, the real story is the why. Unfortunately we never learn why the events of Radius occur other than some vague nonsense about a bolt of space lightning and that's a problem for me. Many reviewers seem to think this is way out there next league writing but it really isn't anything special, about par for The Twilight Zone but not as good as Black Mirror although there is a killer twist. Is that a spoiler?

As previously mentioned this is a low budget affair but it doesn't need a big budget to make a decent film. Unfortunately it does require a big budget to hire good actors and while the male lead, Diego Klattenhoff is just about convincing his co-star Charlotte Sullivan is wooden and her presence on screen only serves to constantly remind the viewer that they are watching a low budget movie. Shame.

If the answer is "sure" then Guardians of the Galaxy 3 will be right up your street. To be fair the movie does have a half decent plot, a good cast and engaging characters ( for a comic book movie ) but in the end it's all just busy work and interminable CGI sequences. After about an hour and a half I'd had enough of the set pieces and painfully self aware ironic jokes and reached for the remote.

Oh dear, still another 200 characters to go before I can wrap up this review. I think IMDB have the same issue as Marvel in that they both think more means better. This movie is the cinematic equivalent of an all you can eat Asian buffet; initially appealing but ultimately poor quality.

...and it's still better than most of the CGI 3 hour long snore fests Hollywood seems to think audiences want these days. Back in 1979 The Warriors was considered pretty close to the bone in regards to on screen violence, much of it in trademark '70s slow motion. However, with the exception of one scene the fight scenes look tame compared to even the average present day USA television show. I'll give the benefit of the doubt when it comes to John Wick 4 ripping off a key element of the movie, the pirate radio station presenter updating the "boppers" as the evening progresses. All we see of her is her mouth speaking into the microphone. Let's call it an homage then rather than blatant plagerism however I doubt most of today's audience will recognize the reference. The film is shot with a comic book esthetic, static frames with graphic images and deliberately Spartan dialogue. It all makes a refreshing change to the over produced monstrosities made these days. It's only a bit over 1 1/2 hours long and the time speeds by as there's never a dull moment. Director Walter Hill ( Southern Comfort, Last Man Standing ) keeps the momentum and tension going from the first scene to the last and it all leaves the viewer with the inevitable question, "Why don't they make them like this anymore?"

Babylon is a Hollywood movie about Hollywood and is every bit as bad as it sounds. The movie begins with a huge orgy of drugs, booze and fornication depicted in loving detail and shows the characters to be debauched degenerates. Is it trying to tell us something about present day Hollywood perhaps? At least back in the day the Hollywood sleeze bags didn't lecture their audience about morality. The movie settles down and follows three primary characters. There's Brad Pitt as the established movie star, Margot Robbie as the young starlet ( I think the boat sailed long ago, darling ) and some Latino bloke I've never seen before who starts off as a gofor but rises to become a studio executive. So only two established stars is simply not enough to carry a three hour movie, the cast should have been a who's who of Hollywood bursting at the seems with cameos. Then there's the identity issue; what's it supposed to be? A comedy, drama, historical? Please make up your mind what you want to be, Babylon. And the elephant at the party is the three hour run time for a movie that really doesn't have anything to say which had me reaching for the remote barely half way through.

Extraction 2 starts the moment the original movie ends as we see a badly injured Tyler Rake ( Chris Hemsworth ) medivact from India to Dubai. Deep in a coma there's even talk of pulling the plug but this is vetoed by Nik Kahn ( Golshifteh Farahani ) Of course Rake pulls through otherwise there wouldn't be a movie so it begs the question, what was the point of the first half hour of the movie? It also begs the question why would his handlers pay a fortune to save the life of an expendable mercenary? They were more than happy to drop him into a meat grinder in the original so why is his life suddenly valuable to them? It's a very lathargic and illogical start to what is supposed to be a high octane action movie.

There's some rubbish plot about Rake's sister in law being in prison with her two kids and gangster husband so Rake has to rescue her. Why? Who is this woman? Why is she important? Why is someone, in this case Idris Elba willing to pay a huge amount of money to rescue her? Don't know, that's never explained other than some vague hush hush need to know cobblers. Lazy writing right there.

Then the action starts and it's bonkers. Superbly choreographed, fast paced and wincingly brutal. This is what we want to see! However instead of the relentless action of the first movie which gives the impression of a single take the sequel is very much stop start. There's basically three action sequences, the prison break, car chase which ends up on a train and the grand finale in a Vienna tower block. While each action sequence is great the movie grinds to a halt in between the action. This is particularly true after the train sequence and it spoils the immersion. Another thing which breaks the fourth wall is Golshifteh Farahani as a hard as nails mercenary. I'm willing to accept Hemsworth as ex SAS but Farahani? Which special forces trained her?

There's some attempt made to make Rake a relatable character with some soppy back story involving a child's drawing and a wife. This is as nauseating as it is boring and irrelevant and once again slows the pace to a crawl.

So in conclusion, although the action is fantastic the film as a whole is badly flawed.

Obviously this is what the writers and director of this movie thought when titling this movie as 65 when the actual Cretaceous Paleogene extinction occured 66 million years ago. It's only a million years, right? Who's going to know? A similar shoddy approach runs through the entire movie. The motivation for Adam Driver's character to sign up for a 2 year space mission is his daughter is sick with a life threatening desease. This is a civilisation which has developed interstellar flight and cryostasis but can't cure cancer?

The ship encounters a meteor field and crash lands on an uncharted planet which is actually Earth 65 million years ago. From this we can conclude the ship crashed on Earth on it's journey to it's intended destination as it still had all it's passengers on board, meaning the ship had been traveling for some time up to a year by this time. An important point as it would follow that any rescue mission would also take the same time to arrive on site. But in this movie it takes less than 48 hours for help to arrive.

The Earth of 65 million years ago is depicted as a cool wet mix of deciduous and coniferous forest, very similar to the USA Pacific Northwest. However the climate of the late Cretaceous was much warmer and more humid than present day with high levels of volcanic activity. The environment would be a dense tropical forest providing ample food for the prey animals of the large predators to feed on. The environment shown in the movie simply wouldn't have been able to sustain those large predators.

So much for the shoddy writing, inaccurate environment and plot holes, but is 65 any good. Surprisingly it isn't bad and Adam Driver's understated performance drags what should be a hum drum average at best affair to above average. The pacing is good, special effects are adequate, production values and design aren't ground breaking but again are adequate to get the job done. It's also reasonably short at about 97 minutes so it doesn't outstay it's welcome. If you can overlook it's many short comings there is some entertainment to be had with 65.

I learned a lot from The Pope's exorcist. For example that Rome is in Italy ( although I suspect they really mean The Vatican ) and that the best way to travel from The Vatican to Leon is by a vintage Vespa. I also learned how low a nortoriously "difficult" washed up Hollywood has been will stoop to pay his tax bill. To be fair this no star affair isn't all that bad, the production values are respectable and the special effects aren't embarrassing but the script is bargain bin at Pound Land caliber. All the usual tropes are here, spooky old house, recently widowed mother, petulant teenage daughter, traumatized young son, an unspeakable ancient evil buried deap below the castle, a whisky quaffing priest and another whoes faith is questioned. It's all by the numbers with zero surprises to offer.

Renfield is the story of Count Dracula's familiar and henchman R. M. Renfield transposed to modern day New Orleans. The eponymous role is taken by Nicholas Hoult while the Count is non other than Nicholas Cage.

In this version of the tale Renfield is a young lawyer dispatched to Transylvania to facilitate a real estate deal with Dracula but who instead falls under the Count's spell and spends the ensuing decades serving him including procurement of victims. I think the writers are getting Renfield mixed up with Jonathan Harker but let's not quibble about accuracy to the source material.

The first act is strong and moves along at a fair old pace but when Renfield gets mixed up in a police investigation the action slows, the script becomes muddy and you'll find yourself looking at your watch a fair bit. There's even a lame love story going on between Renfield and a female cop, zzzzz! Things improve in the third act but there are no surprise twists here, it all plays out exactly as you expect it would.

Hoult is a good actor but is miscast here and his part isn't well written. Remember Renfield is supposed to be insane and actively provides his master with victims but the script has him as the victim of a narcissistic relationship. Typical Hollywood revisionism. Cage does what he does best but even his hysterical style can't breathe life into another badly written character. The script is as dead as the Count himself and the humour in this movie is a product of the bloody OTT violence rather than clever writing.

Although short by today's standards even the modest run time is a slog as the only laughs are a product of schlock horror gore but this soon becomes repetitive making Renfield a one trick pony.

The Menu stars Ralph Fiennes as a masterchef, Nicholas Holt as the chef's fan boy and Anya Taylor-Joy in her nighty. It's not difficult to lampoon the foodie scene and it has been done before, American psycho for example and as such the "humour" isn't anywhere near as clever as it thinks it is. So much for the comedy now let's look at the "horror". What horror? There's potential for a tense psychological thriller here but the "humour" puts a kybosh on that. The scenario is also rather far fetched, an exclusive restaurant on a remote island run by a suicidal chef and staffed by zombie like human drones serving rich wrong uns all marked for death. Hmmm.

Having said all that it still manages an above average score thanks to a great performance from Fiennes however he does make the rest of the cast look wooden by comparison, especially ATJ who does her self no favours. It's also praise worthy for attempting something different but that doesn't merit seven stars.

I became aware of Ti West after a chance viewing of The House of The Devil a few years ago. I was intrigued by the way his films are fairly hum drum affairs until the final reel when things go way off the deep end. I was expecting The Innkeepers to be much the same so I wasn't too concerned that the first two acts are kinda lame as I was expecting a big pay off in the end. The trouble is that payoff never materializes. Just as things start to get going the film abruptly ends and we're left with a weak sauce epilogue in place of the usual Ti West blood and guts insanity. Apart from a couple of formulaic and entirely predictable jump scares there's nothing remotely frightening about this movie and I urge you not to waste your time on it.

....and when I say "adult movie" I don't mean one of THOSE adult movies! It's just that adjectives such as adult, mature and grown up aren't normally associated with Guy Ritchie movies, no bad thing either as what's wrong with having a bit of fun? Although just why GR decided to include his own name in the title is a little hint at hubris. I understand there is another film titled The Covenant but why couldn't Ritchie just call the movie something else? Kinley's Covenant perhaps? Anyway, the end result is a decent bit of film making. The first and third acts are the best however the second act drags a bit ( did you see what I did there, drags a bit ) The problem with the second act is it significantly slows down the pace of the movie to a literal crawl while at the same time feeling a bit rushed and superficial. You could make a two hour movie simply chronicling the story of how an Afghan interpreter literally drags a critically wounded US soldier over 100 km to safety and the subsequent struggle that soldier has to get his saviour out of Afghanistan and it still wouldn't be enough. But I guess you have to pay the bills so Richie book ends that story with some gun ho action. The elephant in the room, how the US forces simply abandoned Afghanistan to the Taliban isn't mentioned which is a shame as it makes a good case for the futility of war.

Wrath of the Titans is the 2012 sequel to 2010s Clash of the Titans and sees Sam Worthington reprise his role of the demi God, Perseus. Liam Neeson and Ralf Finnes return as Zeus and Hades respectively while Edgar Ramirez joins the cast as Aries, Danny Huston plays Posidon and Rosemund Pike is Andromeda. Bill Nighy and Toby Kebbell complete what is a pretty solid cast. It must have cost a pretty penny bringing this cast together which obviously didn't leave much in the kitty for the writing team and the results are a bit of a mash up which takes the characters from Greek mythology but the storyline is a complete concoction. Key elements of the plot are just out and out nonsense, for example neither Hades nor Kronos were exiles in Tarterous which is important as their exile provides the motivation for the entire movie. It's a shame the writer hadn't approached the subject with a bit more respect for the source material. The plot will not satisfy fans of Greek mythology while simultaneously confusing the general audience. Having said that it is still quite entertaining and doesn't overstay it's welcome at only a tad under 100 minutes although it feels a bit rushed in places.

Don't be fooled by the presence of Charlie Hunnam and Jack O'Connell, nor be persuaded by Ridley Scott as executive producer. Ignore the premise of underground illegal bare knuckle fighting as this isn't a film about boxing at all having only 3 short and fairly dull fight scenes. Actually it's an incredibly slow movie which at only 90 minutes or so still manages to very much outstay it's welcome. There is a pay off of sorts as we learn the reason a gangster hires a couple of losers to accompany a teen girl, appalling casting of Jessica Barden, across country to be delivered to a pet store owner. The direction lacks any pace and although the cinematography is good nothing much else is up to par.

I only managed half of the opening episode but in that time there had been a train bombing, several fight scenes, a home invasion and a car chase so this is definitely an all action show. Unfortunately there isn't much of a plot to stitch the action together nor are there realistic or appealing characters. Particularly anoying is Rose who is the definition of the damsel in distress who absolutely can not do as she is instructed even though her life depends on it. There's probably a plot involving corruption in high office but with the emphasis on high paced action it's difficult to see the wood for the trees.

Leonidas was a massive simp! It's true, the movie 300 tells us so. After several years I reviewed the awesome 300 but viewing it with fresh eyes this shocking truth is revealed. Take the iconic scene where Leonidas Spartan kicks the Persian emissary into a well ( not a great move ), just before putting the boot (sandal) in Leonidas turns to his wife who nods her approval. What!? Then there is the iconic line, "Return with you shield or on it!" in other words "Go defend me and don't bother coming back if you fail". The brass neck on this woman, it's obvious who wears the loin cloth in that house. To cap it off she then makes a cuck of Leonidas to bribe her way to speak before the Senate. Stunning and brave, stunning and brave.

It's still an awesome movie though with loads of great action scenes and stunning art direction wrapped up in a, for the time unique visual aesthetic so if you can overcome the blue pill sensibilities 300 is still a great watch.

Given the amount of talent involved Seven Psychopaths should have been a far better movie than it turned out to be, which is to say it's average at best. It's obvious that after the success of In Bruges Hollywood tried to cash in on writer/director Martin McDonagh while maintaining a connection to that far superior movie by casting Colin Farrell. The rest of the cast phone in unconvincing performances apart from Christopher Walken who is the only one who seems to be trying. The plot centers on Farrell's character, a movie writer struggling with a script entitled Seven Psychopaths as well as alcoholism and a failing relationship. We're then introduce to a number of "whacky" characters and unlikely situations which are so contrived it's difficult to watch at times. Just as the plot starts to come together the movie takes an extended break as the three central characters go off to the desert to take pyote and talk pony. McDonagh is literally telling us he doesn't want to make a Hollywood formula movie, Farrell's character actually says this on several occasions. McDonagh is deliberately wasting the audience's time as well as taunting the Hollywood executives who bank rolled the project. Talk about taking a good hard bite out of the hand that feeds you...