Film Reviews by BS

Jessie Buckley and Rory Kinnear somehow manage to carry a bizarre tale of madness, set in an idyllic English village. But what is it all about? What on earth possessed Alex Garland to put together this macabre and tense, yet simulatenously ridiculously pointless movie project? The plotline is wafer thin, the ending is gross and totally weird. But, somehow you feel compelled to see if there are any answers. Some excellent cinematography, but ultimately unsatisfying in the conclusion. This is not Ex Machina!

Matt Reeves gives us a different kind of Batman experience, that looks and sounds authentic. No problems with any of the acting talent here. The sound, music, cinematography, sets are true Gotham. The big problem is the length of this film, and single-track narrative arc, that unfolds like a tedious police drama / thriller. Yes, there's corruption in the City, and it stretches everywhere, well duh! Don't get me wrong, this is a decent effort of a reboot, but compared with Todd Phillips' masterclass Joker film, you can't help but think this was an opportunity missed.

You can love Japan, its people and cultural products, AND still get completely bored by this film (which for some reason has great reviews). It's a painfully slow, lethargic, uninteresting, yawn-inducing, emotion-sapping borefest. But hey, maybe it gets better after the first hour - who knows! I notice that Cinema Paradiso reviewer describes this as "far from boring", and yes, I'd agree. It's boring on another level!

This film is for people who care about Vikings and want to be transported back in time. A classic, often told story of revenge, family troubles, love and internal conflict, morality, betrayal etc .. Beautifully filmed, gorgeous sets and costumes - top acting talent. Yes, it's very violent, but so were the Vikings. Ethan Hawke describes it as a "viking Hamlet". It's brutal, simple and Robert Eggers has done the Vikings proud. Anyone awarding one-star for this epic film is delusional, or just don't like these type of cinematic experiences at home.

Is this a good film? Absolutely not. There is an intriguing premise that drags out into absurdity and frustration. Only at the end do we get a sense of a greater and more interesting conspiracy, which is quite timely. Would Big Pharma companies use unwitting tourists as guinea pigs - sacrificing them for the greater good? On that basis this is a tad like Squid Game. People are dying, seemingly deliberately, but is there method in the madness? There are some maddening plot-holes in this film, and inconsistencies with the narrative logic, that are inexcusably silly. I would list some here, but then I don't want to spoil it for you, if you're so inclined to rent this. Interesting concept, massively flawed execution.

The first episode was fantastic, looked like a we were going to have a real mystery thriller on our hands. But by the 4th and 5th episode it's a very simple plodding plot. The team are trying to find a supernatural creature that you ultimately learn nothing about in the end. Rather disappointing second-half, like a bad X-Files episode.

Time-travel is nonsense, the entire premise of it and silly associated conventions are really annoying, I don't even bother asking if any of it makes plausible sense, because it's totally ridiculous. Ok, if you can park that for a moment, what we have is a cinematic spectacle that defies reason and common sense, but has the trademark Nolan quality to it, that makes it almost worth seeing. That being said, the idea that people from the future will be annoyed at us for climate change so will send people back in time to deal with us car-driving, holiday flying, selfish citizens, is pure propaganda. It was a theme of Interstellar too, that people were killing their planet so had to leave earth in search of a new home. Some memorable action set pieces, with a time-travel twist, provide some entertainment, so it feels like a Nolan Bond movie. He should have just stuck to caped crusaders, he knows how to do those movies.

The story and plot are so basic and predictable, it's barely worth mentioning. The story is about the birth of a Mexican Tomb-Raider with murderous revenge in her blood. What it lacks in story and sharp dialogue it makes up for, with the actors, decent directing and cinematography. Matilda Lutz was absolutely brilliant to watch, although obviously there are some uncomfortable scenes, but nothing too nauseatingly graphic for horror standards. Put it this way, I dozed off 10 minutes into the Tomb Raider reboot, but this just about kept me going, and there was a satisfying ending. Major gripe though is the lack of dialogue, so many unanswered questions. Would have been better if Lutz found someone, even if just a Wilson football she could chat with. Also, there was any shock twist or anything unexpected that happened, so that's why it's hard to offer more than three stars.

I couldn't find a single, solitary aspect to this film which was a patch on the original Spielberg classic. The plotline was probably written in about 10 minutes on a napkin, and the characters/acting is so by the numbers, you find yourself wanting to do nothing more than watch CGI dinosaurs rampaging about. Why don't we just have non-stop dinosaurs, we had that with the monkeys that can talk movies, I really think it's about time to ditch the cliched nonsense of humans trying to save or capture and sell dinosaurs, to having an all out Dinopocalypse. You have no idea how badly I wanted to see Chris Pratt get stomped on, or swallowed some hungrysaurus. The two-stars are for a couple of action sequences and special effects, everything else is pfff ...

That reviewer awarded five-stars to this confusing, painfully dull and arrogant snoozefest. Half an hour in and it was switched off pronto - see other one-star reviews here. Listen to Bradshaw:

"It is almost a genre movie. But the genre is that of Haneke’s own invention. It is unmistakably his work, presented with his usual masterly compositional flair, a mosaic of horror, filmed by cinematographer Christian Berger in crystal-clear light, often with icily detached long-shot camera positions."

He thinks that watching someone in their wheelchair go along a road for a minute and then have a conversation in the distance for another minute that you can't hear because the camera and microphone are too far away, is "masterly compositional flair".

If ever there was a French movie, and there are many of them, where you wish you could rewind and get an hour of your life back, then this would be the one. "Mosaic of Horror" - I do agree Peter, I do agree ...

You get to see the various iterations of the legendary aircraft as it progresses through the war. Accompanied by an inspired soundtrack, some great aerial photography, war footage and interviews with former pilots and people involved in its development. Amazing how technology improves so much when there's a serious need. Almost two centuries with trains however and they we'd be lucky to see one pull away from the station in the UK, what with all the leaves on the line and signalling failures. Why can't we all have a modern mini-spitfire to commute to work in?

How Stanley Kubrick was involved in filming the staged Moon landings, I'm afraid. It's almost entirely based on Leon Vitali's memories of working with the legendary director, and so you get some interesting insights into the genius of Kubrick, but also some of his human failings too. Such a shame old Stan had to leave, and that we never got to see all of Eyes Wide Shut, due to some scenes being edited out, but he will live on, every time we look up at night, that's for sure.

How is Zack Synder still making DC Comics films? The actors all look the part, but the CGI action and is eye-rollingly boring and unengaging. A little bit of banter is mixed with a dull as dishwater storyline, that made literally pray for Christopher Nolan and Bale to come back. Doesn't matter if Bale is too old now, he's a better Batman, let's have him back. But then again, maybe I'm missing a trick. The audience they're aiming for is obviously kids or adults with the minds of small children, so by that measure I suppose this is serviceable.

Despite all the big names, this was one mega-boring, pretentious load of twaddle, masquerading as a murder mystery. I fell asleep twice, and when the ending finally came I couldn't wait to get the disc back into it's sleeve and return to the postbox.

It's been almost 50 years and humans apparently still haven't gone further than earth's orbit, last time was 1972 (allegedly), so take the "2049" with a grain of salt. By then we might have moderately better broadband, and maybe Brexit will finally have happened, but I digress ... Having not been a fan of director Villeneuve's previous sci-fi movie, but did enjoy Sicario, I almost booked a ticket to actually go to something called a cinema and watch it. Glad I didn't, because - just like The Arrival - this film looks and sounds the part, but massively fails to deliver. The story/plot is a mess, and it doesn't get much better once Harrison Ford finally makes an entrance. Why would replicants age and gain limps?

So, if you want to watch something far more interesting in terms of AI, consciousness and humanity/transhumanism, go watch the first season of WestWorld, or play Deux Ex: Human Revolution.