sonnesun Reviews

Quantum Leap (2022–2024)

Better than the original.

[9/10 · 18 August 2023]

There I've said it.

I like the original too as I'm a fan of classic sci-fi, my era, and upon hearing about this I too was skeptical at first. But I was pleasantly surprised.

One problem with the original was that it was always confined to the past, to the leap itself and just getting that week's story over with. You never really saw much else at all in the original timeline.

It would have been more interesting to see Al and other scientists actually work out plans to try get Sam home. The original show whilst being a little more comical was more limited in scope. It was pretty one dimensional and so became a little repetitive for it.

This sequel however rectifies this, and more. People say it lacks humour but there are some comical moments. It also doesn't take itself way too seriously like other modern reboots. It still keeps to the adventure without too much emotional soap drama, and still the same sense of fast paced action and fun which we used to see in sci-fi shows. I'm not sure what show the negative critics were watching.

There are also other new surprise twists & turns to expand on the whole story which I won't spoil but so far it works.

The characters themselves are diverse but the show doesn't feel woke, it's intention is to entertain like the original, it doesn't preach. It is very faithful and respectful to the original show and characters with leap stories just as interesting, or more so. They just expand on the legacy with some very original ideas.

It would really annoy me if this show gets cancelled. They always cancel the good ones, particularly on a cliffhanger. I feel people had already made their minds up before even watching it ignoring the fact that it isn't a reboot, but a continuation.

I really hope that this carries on for many seasons with a proper end. I expect that they will eventually find and rescue Sam Beckett which will be a very special episode, and hopefully a better finale than he orginally got. So this show should hopefully fix the original.

Give it a chance. It does improve as it goes along.

The Batman (2022)

Good dark thriller

[7/10 · 4 August 2023]

I'm not a huge fan of the franchise, but I really enjoyed Joker because it took a totally different take, in retro 70's/80's fashion exploring mental illness.

I always found most Batman movies after Adam West, particularly from Christian Bale onwards to be quite a chore to get through as I personally struggle with the slow burn gothic style with long whispery complicated dialogues. It often put me off Batman movies.

So this time I decided to be armed and ready by utilising the 'Sypnosis' page here on this site. So whenever I get a little lost on what's going on in a movie, I just pause my TV and read the synopsis up to that point, then I unpause and continue watching. It's an effective way to fully understand the movie the first time whilst watching. It helpa if you watch on your own. Without it I would have drifted off otherwise. So did I enjoy it?

Yes I did. It's detective Batman solving riddles again. It was a fair portrayal of the caped crusader and it wasn't all slow drama, he suppliea plenty of action too. But The Riddler really stood out for me. He's a scary man behind his creepy mask. Much more demonic than the clownish portrayals of previous Riddler's. Without the mask, not so much except for his manic laugh, but that's The Riddler.

The Riddler's backstory ties in great with Bruce Wayne's backstory too, and it was great to see so many classic villains, including an unseen one which suggests to me a sequel is maybe on the cards.

Catwoman was originally a villain in the original tv series, but she is definitely more of an antihero now like the dark knight himself. She's a better sidekick than Robin.

Yes it is a long movie, nearly 3 hours long but it gave us a lot and I enjoyed the conclusion. I could probably have easily watched the rumored 4 hour uncut version.

Now I need to watch the Christian Bale movies again, sypnosis at the ready of course.

A Man Called Otto (2022)

There's a little Otto in everyone

[7/10 · 7 July 2023]

I haven't seen nor heard of the original Swedish movie so I can't compare the two. So here is my unbiased short review.

Tom Hanks plays a man called Otto. He projects himself to others as a cantankerous angry old fossil on the outside, but inside he carries a deep lonely sadness after the death of his wife. The story often reflects back on their lives together through his memories. His younger self is played none other than Tom's son "Truman Hanks". They could have just de-aged Tom using current methods but I can understand why they chose this more natural path. Family is important, plus it works.

Whilst they don't look much alike (imo), Trueman plays a more optimistic happier Otto, and this sub-story periodically continues through the movie up until the present day. This is just his third movie and gives a solid & convincing enough (if not Oscar worthy) performance which I'm sure will boost his career, a good platform movie for him.

Tom as a veteran actor can be considered as more Oscar worthy and provides another thoughtful performance as a fairly mild man struggling with the death of his wife, and doesn't suffer fools gladly. Just don't get on his wrong side, particularly if you are a clown. I think that there's a little Otto in at least most of us somewhere.

A young new family moves across the street into his neighbourhood, who immediately befriends him (at his annoyance)?after he begrudgingly parks their car for them, because to him (as an easily irritated man) they're not parking it right. They awkwardly slowly form a close friendship, and as the story progresses through various scenarios with them including troubled teens, greedy estate agents plues dealing with his own depression & health etc; Otto slowly learns that he isn't alone and does have plenty to live for. Along with Truman Hanks

It's not really a comedy, but more of a heartfelt drama although at times it does make you smile (just enough). Normally I'm not much into this genre as maybe I should be, but this is pretty good. It's all beautifully played out along with the supporting cast and it held my interest to the end. I would recommend this film to anyone even if they aren't usually into these kind of movies like me. I may watch the original for comparison but it won't knock any marks from this adaption.

I feel it's important enough to mention that the rolling end credits include a plea for anyone who needs crisis/emotional support to visit findahelpline.com, or to ring 988 if in the USA. It then states "Take action for yourself and be there for others". I couldn't agree more.

Time Bandits (1981)

It's not the holy grail.

[4/10 · 6 July 2023]

Not for kids. The ending is too disturbing & unsettling for younger viewers (it's depressing enough for adults), including the very final scene after the final credits roll with an extra slap in the face. It's all very dark and sinister that even the Supreme Being is portrayed as being quite at unpleasant odds on what/who he is supposed to truly represent. A complete and depressing contrast to the rest of the movie. At least Alice in Wonderand escaped unscathed with her childhood intact.

Otherwise it's pretty much a corny fantasy movie, and rather hokey childlike not unlike The Neverending Story, and the long running time makes it feel it. The John Cleese scene though is genuinely funny for everyone where it goes straight into medieval pythonesque mode (he's extremely silly), but there aren't enough scenes that comes anywhere close enough to that moment.

Sean Connery does fine but it does get a bit too oddly sentimental, and Michael Palin steals some very funny moments. Kevin Baker and the rest of his small motley crew does a good job playing rough & tumble bandits by what they've been given, it goes a little overboard though.

The movie also doesn't quite place where its main age target audience is aimed at and the running time feels a bit too long. There's some mild to moderate violence, and Kevin the kid (the seventh dwarf) seems a little too underwhelmed by his overwhelming misadventure that you're kind of wanting him to shut up once in a while and let the crazed adult dwarves get on with it. Perhaps this age rating confusion is a deliberate ploy to reveal its wtf ending to all movie watching age groups, for some strange reason.

Kevin is also a bit too calm and mild-mannered whilst all the lunatics rush and run around him causing chaos. Arthur Dent as a child? They both clearly share the same wardrobe.

But it's quite well made with high production values (mostly), but the story itself really isn't up to Douglas Adams writing level though. It slows down drifting off quite frequently but there are some fun scenes, not many. I'm sure it reads better as a screenplay script.

Watching it is a bit like slowly eating a large bowl of cheap sweet breakfast cereal where it gradually starts feeling it doesn't taste quite right after a while, only to find a nasty lump of poo lying on the final spoonful, just a little too late (gulp).

I think it was our first VHS movie we rented, probably around 1982. I was a child then and probably dozed through a lot of it missing the jist of the story a little as it was slow enough to lose interest. Their antics don't always grabs the viewers attention enough and it goes on a bit too long.

Overall it's an okay movie but with a very mean-spirited ending and probably deserves its cult movie status just because of that alone. My original memories are vague and that's likely why I didn't watch it again until now, and now I understand why.

It's one where I don't feel the need to watch a third time, except for the John Cleese scene. But even that wasn't enough to stop me feeling uncomfortably depressed with Connery driving away giving a mysterious sinister wink to the boy who's left with nothing but holding cruel mocking photographic reminders of his terribly cruel final fate on something he didn't deserve, and again after the rolling credits finish reminding us of him taking the photos of the laughing bandits. It's a movie where it teaches kids that god is cruel and will use them, take everything away & then abandon them.

As a Christian myself "Life of Brian" is a great and funny movie, one of my favourite movies of all time. But church leaders got that film all wrong as it never mocked Jesus nor God. This movie is different however and I do question Terry Gilliam's intentions on the ending. Maybe he had plans to rectify it in the shelved sequel but we may never know.

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)

Very silly but not without some merit

[4/10 · 1 July 2023]

It strangely begins with a humanoid who encounters a myserious lone traveller on a dusty world, who cleanses his soul of grief with a few kind words and then convinces the humanoid to help him steal a starship for an epic journey of which remains unknown to the viewers at this point. It then picks up with Kirk's rock climbing scene, although I was immediately left wondering why even Kirk would risk his own life so unnecessarily by climbing such a high rocky mountain without safety cables. He believes that one day he would die alone but not this time as he had Spock & McCoy to save him. But he can't be sure of that. He struck lucky that time, but that was foolhardy. Good time for Spock to finally don a pair of rocket boots. I'm with McCoy on this one, I'd be a bit pissed off with Kirk too.

The comedy moments between the crew are more in the first half. McCoy is still insulting Spock as is his usual passive-aggressive way, but it becomes a little too repetitive through it that you kind of feel that he's just becoming a little obnoxious now.

Scotty, Uhura, Zulu & Checkov have little to do but follow basic orders. The flirty scene of Uhura towards Scotty though, where did that come from and how long had it been going on between them? This comic relief moment fell flat. It served no purpose and it was a strange sight to watch. "She's gonna blow any minute". Now that would have at least been an entertaining line.

As for the rest of the movie; the storyline although interesting in its intentions of discovering the biggest mystery of all, God himself where Sybok is convinced that he lies beyond The Great Barrier (whatever that is) at the centre of the galaxy. But wouldn't that basically be a black hole?

It quickly devolves into something becoming fantastical and the crew quickly fall under Sybok's spell. Perhaps he's using his vulcan mind bending abilities. Yes, that's it. No other explanation.

It turns out later after Spock seemingly betrays Kirk by refusing to shoot and kill Sybok then handing him his rifle, that they are in fact half-brothers. Now why didn't Spock mention this little family connection at the beginning when he recognised him on the video screen on board The Enterprise? For Spock that's an unforgivable failure of logic. It becomes Kirk's turn to be rightly pissed off with Spock this time.

Meanwhile klingon Captain Klaa seeks glory for himself with the klingon empire by hopefully being the one to finally mortally defeat the mighty Captain Kirk of the Starship Enterprise. We all know that it's only going to go one way as usual though, but at least he can boast back to his taunting fellow klingon brothers that he at least tried and survived the battle where others before him failed. He was a side inconvenience for a while but they have to bulk up the main story a little somehow. His ship unwittingly comes in handy later on so he wasn't completely without purpose.

Well to cut an overly long story short, Sybok takes control of the Enterprise, and after convincing the crew they finally breach this great barrier at the centre of the galaxy and find a barren planet. An entity violently emerges after Sybok summons him believing him to be God. Everyone else is convinced too including McCoy until Kirk grows suspicious at its demanding request in commandeering the Enterprise itself and tests him. This questioning angers the being to violently lash out at Kirk, and then Spock after he questions him too which finally convinces Sybok that the entity is not God after all but a sinister entity wishing to escape the planet by stealing their starship. After all, why would God need a spaceship?

Sybok seeks forgiveness from Spock before sacrificing his life to save him and the crew. Meanwhile the klingon Bird's of Prey comes to the rescue after Captain Klaa is ordered by his commanding superior (who was initially a hostage of Sybok) to stand down, and Spock then fires its main weapon to destroy the evil entity. Captain Klaa can at least also further add to his taunting brothers that he also saved an honourable klingon General from certain death. So he still achieved some glory. Lucky really.

On a side note, Sybok speaks of the great barrier which is located at the centre of the galaxy, allegedly where god is. But surely the real barrier is the edge of the universe which is amongst the greatest unknown mysteries of them all. Maybe that's Q territory, they think they're gods too.

Overall whilst enjoyably entertaining in a really terrible way, it just became very silly & whimsical. They tried to inject a little too much humour in parts. You can tell it was made on a budget, and Shatner was not happy with the final result. A subject matter as this is not an easy thing to get right, and it felt a little rushed but a 4 star rating I feel is fair as it has its fun moments. But I won't even mention the camp singalong. I can see why this falls bottom of the movie pile but it's still worth a watch because it's just plain daft.

Death Line (1972)

Simply Terrifying!

[8/10 · 14 June 2023]

Donald Pleasance plays the role of a cynical police inspector who is on the case after an upper class bureaucrat goes mysteriously missing in a London Underground tube station in this little known British classic horror thriller.

The main antagonist is a crazed vagrant madman who for unknown reasons lives inside the London Underground tube tunnels. His only purpose is abducting commuters from station platforms to torture and murder them in the most violent and frightening form, usually dragging them back to his rotting dungeon somewhere down a disused tunnel.

People are becoming more desensitised these days through cutting edge horror over the years, but this movie remains a truly horrifying forgotten masterpiece.

The film starts off slow burning and builds up rather nicely. The constantly moving single scene camera work through the tunnels and into his lair when we first discover the madman is the first toe-curling highlight, and it keeps you gripped for a good period of time. As the movie progresses it doesn't fail to jump scare and terrify you even more, the violence and torture is horrific and brutal. The atmosphere of the tunnels and lair is extremely eerie and creepy. For a low budget production, the sense of fear it induces is tangible, and the whole direction keeps you on the edge of your seat.

You do start to feel a sense of pity for the madman though whose only dialogue apart from random gibberings is "Mind the doors!", which is all he ever hears from the station tannoys.

His background is never really explained and I feel that's a good thing. I wouldn't like to know what goes on inside his head (it's unnecessary), and this movie thoughtfully spares us from that. There are enough scares.

Because he never leaves the tunnels then one must assume that he kills them for food which is the most logical explanation, likely to take a break from eating live rats once in a while. His sense of grief and remorse on his victims further confirms this thought, and it feels tragically genuine as he cannot control himself. A truly tragic monster.

One thing I felt was surprisingly unnecessary in the movie though and that was Christopher Lee's short role as an MI5 agent. He was sinister enough and plays his part well as always, but someone in his important high police position of power would not play sinister mind games with the MET police, but remain professional and tell them what they actually need to know about the case without intimidating riddles. This is the only niggle I've found, but it isn't a biggie and his scene is quite enjoyable.

The other two leading characters, are a young couple. A brash American who gradually grows on you, and his English girlfriend who unwittingly falls into the clutches of the madman, and of course he has to try save her.

The ending is satisfying and all the dots are connected and you're left feeling that you've just found a favourite cult classic. Definitely a movie not to watch alone if you're easily scared.

Dick Turpin (1979–1982)

Why hasn't this won awards?

[10/10 · 12 May 2023]

I remember flash moments watching this show when I was around 7-10 years old. Something stuck with me so decided to watch them again. I'm glad I did.

Every episode in this 4 part series is a rip-roaring swashbuckling adventure fit for "just about" all ages, but series 3 is something special with a few major star appearances. Donald Pleasance (the biggest star) is particularly terrifying in his single appearance in the penultimate episode and...I can't spoil it for you but it's a true horror first half moment with a spectacular finale which just leaves you with chills. But it's one of the show's most memorable moments. Series 3 is different to its mostly episodic series format, and told in parts as one feature length movie.

Firstly, we learn from the pilot episode (and wiki) that Richard O'Sullivan's fictional Dick Turpin is set straight after the real life Turpin from old English folklore is hanged in 1739. This fictional version separates itself from the real highwayman. So in this show's universe it is believed that Richard O'Sullivan's version to be the genuine famous outlaw whilst our real life Turpin only falsely claims to be him. Flipping it around. He is more of a heroic Zorro character with an English accent in this, and all stories are fictional and is portrayed more as a brave outlaw with a cause. Popular amongst the locals whilst becomes the enemy of the redcoats & gentry. The real outlaw's life remains mostly unknown, so this is not created as a historical account, but to entertain.

This is by far O'Sullivan's best role and his acting completely shines through in this. He always seemed to be tied down to family comedy sitcoms before and since. He should have received far more episodes.

Michael Deeks plays Turpin's sidekick Swiftnick, nicknamed by Turpin after taking him under his wing. Swiftnick was also a famous English highwayman who had died in 1684, which is 55 years before this is set. We can assume that Turpin nicknamed him after the real outlaw. He is Britain's fictional version of Billy the Kid, and the comrade chemistry between him and Turpin makes for a really entertaining show.

The episodes are mostly episodic. The swordfighting & fistifcuff scenes are well choreographed. The location settings are realistic and the characters are always kept interesting. It really gives off a small sense of what times were like back then also, although more sanitised (except for Donald Pleasance's moment who is completely frightening). At only around 25 minutes long per episode, the great storylines moves along at incredible pace with plenty of action. The acting is first class from all the main characters, and the main villains are excellently portrayed.

It has plenty of genuinely funny moments but has plenty of interesting drama too. The storylines are excellent. The dramatic toe-tapping instrumental theme tune (hey diddly dee) fits the show wonderfully.

It is a proper swashbuckler adventure like Robin Hood & Zorro, fictionally based on two olde English legends and not to be taken too seriously. I really don't understand why this isn't more popular. It has aged brilliantly and probably beats most if not all of these dull period dramas today (as well as others). They're becoming too decadent nowadays. Dick Turpin & Swiftnick always treats their ladies with chivalry & respect. Not to say that they won't gently bring any down who mischievously crosses them.

It is a shame that they didn't go onto making anymore episodes. Fortunately it is all on a DVD boxset though. This really needs remastering and repeated on TV again.

Anyway, this gets a solid gold ten.

Love Thy Neighbour: Royal Blood (1975) Season 6, Episode 5

Good but had potential for more

[7/10 · 1 May 2023]

Eddie after insulting Bill, believes he has blue royal blood in his ancestory. Bill decides to play a prank on him by forgery to get his own back. Final outcome, hilarious. So, why does the story feel so short?

The answer could be that the long medieval dream sequence in between was unneccesary. Overdone with the silliness (again). Jacko made me crack a smile at the end of his mad routine though by his most obvious means.

But the main plot about Eddie's royal ancestory heritage would have stood up on its own without the dream. The allocated time could have been better spent by Bill pushing the prank further upon hapless Eddie raising his sense of self-importance, until the great significant reveal at the end.

It's still worth a watch, but a small wasted opportunity. It could have been a classic.

Love Thy Neighbour (1972–1976)

The clue is in the name

[7/10 · 25 April 2023]

Watching this for the first time on DVD. Updating as I'm getting through them. I had only watched the movie back in the early eighties as the show was never repeated on TV.

So, yes it's very racist, but also misunderstood by many critics. Did it promote racism or mock the bigotry? Depends on your point of view. Both sides seems valid. My view is both, but any promotion of it was unintentional, and unforeseen at the time due to less culture awareness during the 1970's. These days, racism is far worse than it ever was back then (and not due to this show). Besides, both Rudolph Walker (who still defends the show) and Nina Baden-Semper would never have taken part otherwise. Who'd think they'd be naive enough to? Personal view over.

This show reverses political sides from "Til' Death Us Do Part". Alf Garnett is a right wing Tory whilst Eddie Booth is a left wing socialist. It showed that anyone can be racist. What's even more interesting is that Bill is a tory. For back then that is progressive which shows that nobody is politically pigeonholed.

Although Bill is black, he only ever retaliated with racist remarks back at Eddie after he is pushed to by him. Bill's wife understands his frustration but reminds him that his racist slurs back are unacceptable too. Why stoop to Eddie's level as Bill clearly isn't a racist she is really saying. Onto a brief review of each series.

Series 1-3: Starts off strong. It has plenty of great comedic moments. Few duff episodes towards the end of series 3 with some overly silly moments.

The movie adaption was released between series 3 & 4. Worth a watch.

Series 4-5: Apart from the racial slurs from Eddie they then tamed it right down turning it into a more mild conventional ITV comedy sitcom, moving the focus more away from Bill & Eddie onto other characters, and then just making them all completely bonkers making less sense. They even broke the fourth wall right at the end of series 4. I'll say no more on that. Series 5 was marginally better.

It becomes too repetitive with weaker storylines and jokes and doesn't get any better as it goes on. They made Eddie more a clueless gullible buffoon than before. Stories become a bit too ridiculously silly. Bill also becomes way too soft on Eddie's racism, and that's apart from Bill still often threatening to give him "a bunch of black fives" in anger and never does. Gets old quickly by then. Why does he still try so hard to be friends with someone so continuously unbearable? His own added gullibilities and foolishness helps kill these seasons. He should remain the more sensible if the two.

Series 6 & 7: Better storylines. Making it more fun to watch again. Eddie is still gullible as ever. Fewer duff moments, particularly a silly medieval dream scene. Haven't gotten around to watching the final eighth series yet, so will update again in due course.

Barbie is is very likeable but also a bit too sweet, she should have been just as cutting as Joan (who's hilarious). The original Joan in the unaired episode was too nice for Eddie, so good switch. They both put up with cheating hubbies though. I'm more dismayed by the wive's attitudes of only mildly chastising their husbands for whenever being caught cheating, like they were just being late home from the club. This kind of further tarnished their characters a little for me too. I feel this aspect is more dated today rather than anything else. Eddie always seems like a fool for anything though.

Jacko & Arthur are great extras though. Particularly "I'll have half" Jacko. Always perplexing Eddie. "...Pardon?". Arthur on the other hand often cracks funny jokes about his mostly unseen overbearing wife. The original landlord was more background. The new meaner landlord who is more hostile towards Eddie plays a bigger role, but his character quickly gets toned down into someone more likeable.

I feel that they missed a big opportunity in not making the racist slurs cut both ways equally towards each other. Eddie's slurs are continuous whilst Bill's remain too few and far between. Perhaps more people might have understood the shows intentions better if they had not these few issues. This is worth watching at least once or twice anyway. It has never been aired on TV since its original run but is available in a complete DVD boxset.

The Mandalorian: Chapter 22: Guns for Hire (2023) Season 3, Episode 6

This is not the way

[1/10 · 6 April 2023]

Is this the Star Wars universe or the Disney universe?

Right from the beginning with its first sickeningly bittersweet lost love scene between two loved-up dimbo alien teenage lizards torn apart like Romeo & Juliet. It didn't really get any less silly after that, until the final Mandalorian fight scene. They should have saved that bit for the next episode tbh because much before it was a little bit too sweet fairytale for me, and some slightly better elements with the downtrodden droid race felt a little overdone with more added cheese.

At least Christopher Lloyd is still great at acting crazy though, but that Scooby end scene of his. I was half-expecting him to say "and Inwould've gotten away with it too if it weren't for those meddling Mandalorians". He was wasted in this episode.

It was all so syrupy Disneyfied that I was also half expecting Jack Black & Lizzo to break into song together with enchanted singing tableware. What did I just watch?

Maybe Disney 'deliberately' tacked the first scene from the next episode to the end of this one, because they knew that it was so shockingly Disneyfied that they did it to hoodwink any doubters into thinking that this was a great episode. I wasn't taken in by it though. It just made me cringe and didn't suit the more adult grittier format and nature of the show. Just my own opinion though.

Scrooge: A Christmas Carol (2022)

Confusing Humbug!

[7/10 · 16 December 2022]

It's simply terrible. It was like it didn't know what it wanted to be. Changed and cut out way too many major parts of the story just a little too much.

The new ending was terrible. I get that they may wanted to be different to separate it from the countless similar past remakes with their changes, so why include 3 Albert Finney songs with similar scenes alongside some new original songs & scenes? Did they run out of time to compose a few more songs in time for Christmas?

They all sounded bland compared. It lost the emotional impact of the original film musical. Any humour from the 'Thank You Very Much' song just got lost and fell flat in this partial remake.

The Pixar style animation looked a little lacklustre, plus including a soppy dog as Scooge's pet also made it feel more like a children's movie rather than a family movie. That in itself isn't really a problem, for Nickolodeon. It just felt far more Disneyfied than the Disney version. It's over Disneyfied. I'm only surprised that the dog didn't talk (it knew how to read though) 😆

One for small children, but they'd probably humbug it too. Bah!

No Time to Die (2021)

Well it does explain one thing.

[6/10 · 8 March 2022]

Is he the same James Bond as the others? Quite frankly, no. It makes sense.

OK, well firstly as for the movie itself it was a little slow and tedious which dragged on a little too long, and the plot was a little overly complicated than needs be, but there are some good action scenes too. It's not the worst in the franchise but not the best either.

The main scene which will be remembered for years though is the ending. This is one of the most powerful scenes in the entire franchise. I think it was very original, and quite poignant. It was very sad but it worked. As I see it James Bond has had six actors play him so far (not counting David Niven). They all have different faces and personalities, the first Bond looks older than the later ones through the decades. He never really ages. What is he a Galifreyan Timelord?

It's been a question which has been pondered on for decades but never really answered, until now. It also says right at the end that James Bond will return. So it can't really be said now that he's the same James Bond as the others. Same character, just a different incarnation, like a reboot each time if you like.

So just like any other action hero reboot, the same can be said for this. It makes more sense if we conclude that with each new actor to play the part, it creates a different alternate Bond universe with their own unique personality. Past Bond's are unconnected with other Bond's and their own stories. The Bond who married Tracy in 1969 and was immediately widowed (OHMSS) may be the same character, but it's not the same Bond in "No Time To Die". Connery's Bond is not the same Bond as Moore's, same with Dalton & Brosnan. None of them are in the same Bond universe, nor do they share the same past memories.

Just like Christopher Reeve's Superman is not in the same universe as George Reeves's Superman, they don't hold the same memories of each other either, but they are the same character all the same. Just reboots with different stories played by different actors. Didn't Superman die in one of his later more modern stories?

Well that's my take on it, and this is probably the official line now. They can probably either marry him off (without her dying this time) and retiring, or kill him off at the end of each actor's run now in many heroic ways.

For all we know he might actually be a Galifreyan Timelord in one alternate Bond universe and see him regenerate into the next Bond, maybe even a woman....nah now that's going way too far.

A Christmas Carol (1984 TV Movie)

Lacks emotion and heart

[3/10 · 25 December 2021]

Nobody needs to repeat what the Dickens classic is all about, most has at least seen one version of this timeless tale and there's been many movie & TV adaptions. How does this one stand up?

Well, not very well actually. It all looks the part, good sets, great costumes and quite a strong cast, most of the story is there, but this means nothing when the acting feels so wooden. They all look bored and apathetic, particularly George C. Scott who plays the old miser himself. It's like the ghosts are something he sees everyday. No fear at all, just totally apathetic of their presence. Susannah York who plays Mrs. Cratchet is no better, like Tiny Tim's illness is of no real consequence. Even Scrooge appears more concerned. His performance does feel a little more credible later on with the ghost of Christmas yet to come, but not by much. Edward Woodward at least makes a passable attempt at the ghost of Christmas present, but the whole plodding pace of this adaption makes his role fall rather flat anyway

This is probably the most boring version of a Christmas classic so far. The acting feels very amateurish. Nobody really shines in this. Stick with the Alistair Sims version or the excellent Albert Finney's musical. Even the Disney adaption tells it better. They're way better than this.

Solitary (III) (2020)

Not good

[3/10 · 1 October 2021]

The premise is good but the execution is terrible, the acting is worse and the ending is non-existent. Did they survive? We shall never know because the film just abruptly ends without any closure. It's like writing a book forgetting to add the final chapter, only this is deliberate. Open ended stories need to be at least a little thought provoking and provide at least some kind of satisfying end, but this ending just sucks just like the entire movie itself.

Escape from L.A. (1996)

Better than EFNY? What film were they watching?

[2/10 · 8 August 2021]

This is way worse than Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull. Even that movie has scored higher here. Certainly a bigger disappointment.

EFNY is a proper dystopian stone cold classic. This is awful, forgettable. A cheap cash-in.

John Carpenter calls EFLA more mature. What, Snake Plisken looking silly on a surf board? It's the Superman IV of the franchise. This movie doesn't take itself seriously at all, and is more like a comedy trying to be Big Trouble in Little LA. Not a dark scifi thriller. It's totally at odds with the gripping original.

Special effects are horrible. They filmed it at night, but everything looks a little more...brighter and cleaner. Not dark dingy and sleazy like the first movie.

The new characters are bland. At least in the first movie they all had a lot of depth and character to them, it was much better casting. Lee Van Cleef, Donald Pleasance, Harry Dean Stanton, Adrienne Barbeau, Ernest Borgnine, Isaac Hayes. Lots of good actors.

More violence? Still have flashbacks of Snake planting that spike in the back of that ring fighters head in the first movie. The ending of EFNY is amazing with the chase on the bridge, much better than this. This ending was kind of predictable in this sequel.

The whole soundtrack of the first movie is amazing from beginning to end. The atmosphere is just lost on this.

The only disappointing thing about EFNY is that Carpenter didn't include the scene of what put him in NY in the first place, but at least it's on blu-ray in the extras now. I always watch that bit first even though it's not cleaned up.

When I think of Snake Plisken, I can only think of EFNY. It is no wonder this flopped badly. They just tried to do a cheap comedy remake and it failed miserably.

Bill & Ted Face the Music (2020)

Haters don't get it

[7/10 · 27 September 2020]

Firstly, it is not a reboot, it is a sequel. People bang on about political correctness complaining about the daughters. Why? There are no Mary Sue moments like Disney Star Wars, nor a terrible reboot like the last Ghostbusters movie.. They are not the main characters, only Bill and Ted are. It was the boys who were remembered in the future for the song, and if it weren't for them being told to change the timeline, they would not have met their wives, and had their daughters in the first place, so this is why they they take all the credit. Besides, the writers explain why they are girls. They realised a male carbon copy of Bill & Ted would just come across as lame, and even if their personalities were different it just wouldn't have worked. Being girls just gives it a new fresh dynamic. This is not a feminist politically correct movie.

The daughters are only as important extras to the movie as the wives are. They did not write the greatest song ever, they just helped out on a terrible song (because Bill and Ted are actually just as terrible too which is the joke that flew over many) and what is wrong with that? Oh, they're female...and? Nobody complained about the wives. But I guess all the misogynists just expected them to also flutter their eyelids and look pretty. But the daughters although located famous people through time instead of B&T still only played second fiddle in the movie all the same. If they had sons instead, what's the difference, really?

Also it stands to reason that the movie producers wouldn't be able to find composers to "actually" write the greatest song ever anyway, for the movie. It would just fall flat as cringeworthy, and may even spoil the film a bit. So the actual ending was more fitting. They complain Dave Grohl wasn't in the band, but tbh as the song was always going to be terrible and Dave would not want to put his name to that, that is clearly why Kid Cudi was in the band instead (who can't act to save his life), along with the grim reaper. Sure Hendrix was in it (kind of) but he just went along for the buzz.

As for the grim reaper not being in it enough, he was. Long enough. It was hardly a cameo, he just came in later. People complain about Dennis. Why? This self-awkward insecure character is more than just a nod to Marvin the paranoid android from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. He is just as much a silly goofy character as Death (who feels misunderstood and just wants to be a rockstar). I also don't get the complaint about Dennis going to hell either as he is just a robot. Ummm, that's the joke.

They also complain about Keanu Reeves acting being flat. Ummm, he is older now, so naturally Ted is too. Is it compulsory to still have exactly the same energy he had as a teenager? Alex Winter may have outshone him as a little more livelier in that department but Reeves did a good enough job all the same. They are both older now, I guess people expected the same youthful energy.

They say it isn't as funny. Well, the humour is a bit 90's dated now but that is the whole point. The bitter angry down & out Bill & Ted were really funny fighting with themselves. The gags were there but again they don't quite give it the same youthful enthusiasm, but that's okay. The end was pretty sweet.

I just feel the moaners are now old men themselves and forgotten what it was like to be young. I am 48 myself, but I read a good review of this movie from an 18 year old who loves the first two movies, and he says this movie is really no different to them, saying it is still really a 90's movie, it is in many ways. People have forgotten that, and expected something more modern yet at the same time complain about political correctness. But there is none.

It is just a goofball fun movie that does not have to make total sense. None of the three movies do due to it being a goofball comedy. They were hardly cerebral movies in the first place. Sure, they were told by people from the future that they would write the greatest song ever to save the world, but hey historians have been wrong in real life. When history becomes vague, it becomes legend.

So what were people actually expecting from this?

Sure, it is perhaps the weakest out of the three, likely because they naturally do not possess the same youthful energy now, but it is still a good ending to a fun trilogy. Those who complain about it being a disappointment obviously expected something entirely different, but they don't seem to know what. Give it a few years and it will likely grow on them. It's certainly a lot better than many comedies today, with the same vibe on how goofy movies were made back then.

Joker (I) (2019)

He wasn't laughing, he was crying.

[10/10 · 8 October 2019]

Do not expect a fast paced action adventure. This is a different kind of movie to the usual DC/Marvel stuff. This is a pure psychological thriller of epic proportions with incredible character development. It is already one of my favourite all time movies. It is an instant classic which is becoming somewhat of a rarity these days.

This is a pure origin story of how Arthur Fleck slowly became The Joker. In fact it isn't really much about The Joker at all, but rightly more about Arthur Fleck. Joaquin Phoenix has given us the most human version of the character yet as he slowly descends into insanity. If he doesn't win an oscar for this then just scrap the awards altogether.

It really raises empathy about mental health issues, what it is like struggling day to day living with the loneliness and stigmas of poor mental health within a cruel heartless society, and for Arthur who we learn also has empathy too for the underdog. This is definitely not a comic book flick. I am no huge Batman fan, but I am now a big fan of The Joker. I left the cinema feeling that I learned something new about myself. He wasn't laughing, he was crying.

Wonder (I) (2017)

I have facial disfigurement. Here is my brutally honest review.

[5/10 · 5 March 2018]

Firstly, I know there are some people with real facial disfigurements who are upset that the child wasn't played by someone with a real facial disfigurement, I can understand why. But as I have unilateral cleft palate myself which is similar, and that I have faced much discrimination throughout life, I feel that it was appropriate to cast a non disfigured child for the role. Why?

As unlike a child actor without disfigurement, he wouldn't be able to clean the movie makeup off afterwards. Therefore other kids and even adults in the real world would assume that the young actor is still in character, and bullied even more for it. The movie would only enforce the focus even more on his real life disfigurement in the real world and less on the young actor who played him. Therefore I feel that it was a wise insightful appropriate move. If it was an adult character then I would question it...Anyway back to the movie.

It was...okay. But it didn't nail the true reality. I identified with a few things especially the bullying. But as I suspected this movie would be which is a major problem of what a lot of these kind of movies have, it feels much too sanitised.

The kid dealt with it a lot better than I did, a lot better than many do. But maybe it is partly because he has the unrealistic perfect movie parents and idyllic family life, and of course as I also suspected would happen he receives a standing ovation from the whole school at the end and everybody is now his friend. As Gargamel would say "How sickeningly sweet!".

In the real world quite often the bullying is relentless right to the end where even teachers and head teachers don't do a damn thing, and even victim blame, and that it often continues into adult life with even more discrimination. I know this from hard experiences.

Another thing, as somebody else pointed out and I agree, the main character "Auggie" started talking about how you can tell someone from their shoes. Trust fund kid, crazy kid, hand-me-down kid.....Why would he judge others on their appearance when he gets similar treatment himself? I realise the narrative is probably there to suggest that everybody can be unfairly stereotyped, but for me in the real world I think we with severe facial disfigurements have learned to be less superficial than that.

I for one would like to watch a real hard hitting gritty realistic movie, from childhood through to adulthood where it doesn't have the perfect sanitised happy TV movie ending. Not necessarily a really sad unhappy ending, but at least an ending where it shows that he or she as an adult has learned life's harsh lessons the hard way through the continuing bigotry of others through life. Show the world what many of us still go through.

The child actor should again be played by someone who isn't disfigured for real for the reasons I gave, but an adult actor who is more emotionally mature and equipped to deal with the cruel comments in the real world should be played by an actor who is.

"Wonder" is a sweet movie with good intentions, worth watching the once and it does show a degree of empathy which we need more of these days, but it is still typical TV movie syrupy and sanitised melodrama stuff, that isn't near realistic enough. I hope one day it might inspire a more insightful educating movie and portray the true harsh reality of living with facial disfigurements (and maybe even added speech impairment) even if it alarms and shocks people. It would send a more powerful message and that would be a good thing.

5/10