Reviews

I caught this on Prime, and it looked intriguing because Helen Mirren is an excellent actor.

It was like watching two differing films that were split exactly at the halfway mark. The first half is definitely better, as it follows the conventional story of a man falling in love with a prostitute and dealing with acceptance, then jealousy, then control. The film then becomes something else in the second half. It focuses on a drug deal that is probably one of the easiest deals ever to go down in cinematic history, has a somewhat justified murder, and then ends with the most bizarre arguments I have ever seen.

You really have to watch that ending! Given that I have added this review to Spoilers, I want to talk about ending. That "OK" right at the end of the film made me laugh and confused at the same time. We just witnessed Beaty and Emory fight about their future together to run away from the law and to seek a new life elsewhere, only for the clincher to be whether Beaty's son wants to stay home because he was made captain of the football team. They argue and argue and argue, only for Beaty to insist to her son that they are going away. Her son notchy shrugs his shoulders and says, "OK". Then off they go, laughing all the way to Heathrow.

I must admit, I did laugh out loud because my eyes were telling me something, but my brain refused to believe it. Can the stakes get any lower!

Overall, I did enjoy some solid acting from Mirren, Shea and Angelis (who was superb as the scary Alex). It was great to see London again at the cusp of the late 70s / early 80s.

It is a shame the film ended on such a bum note. The second half needed a tighter script with higher stakes at play.

This is a superb cerebral show that often made me think about cause and effect, parallel universes, and whether free will or set destiny is actually a thing. To its credit, it does not once try to dumb down the science fiction to cater for slower or bored minds.

When watching it, it reminded me of a novel by Stephen Baxtor and Arthur C Clarke called The Light of Other Days, which followed the similar concept of seeing into the past (with the use of wormhole technologies) and how that impacted society. Of the two, this is a better story because it also covers the implication of knowing the near future and whether we have free will to act against something that is destined to happen. Very clever; well, at least it makes you think!

Towards the end, the show painted itself into a corner on why the machine stopped seeing into the future. The show had to "end" one way or another, and I guess the fact that Lilly chose free will to disrupt the algorithm is something, but ultimately it felt a little unsatisfying. Finding a "good" ending was going to be really tough, given the premise of the show. Say that I liked the very end when both Forest and Lilly were aware of their own simulation inside one of the machine's algorithms. That is a pretty smart way to wrap it up.

I would definitely see this again and buy it on Blu-ray or 4K if it ever gets released.

Also, how refreshing to actually watch a one-off show with a beginning, middle, and end.

Visually spectacular. Tonally, a mess.

The last 30 minutes had studio scissors all over the place. I suspect a directors cut would make for a better viewing.

The problem I had with this film is that half the world building is simply amazing from suicide AI bombs to downloading someone's brain to a spaceship missile launcher, but the second half made zero sense with robots that eat, sleep and wear clothes, to none of the AI using their technology to their advantage like Bluetooth communication to infrared to better tactical awareness. The robots acted and behaved as humans, making our fear of AI meaningless.

Also how does a robot grow? That was just plain dumb. What is going to do - grow metal?

Its a let down on what could have been a huge potential and an amazing film. Its like going to a restaurant and having an amazing starter and premeal cocktail, only for the main course to be meh and awful dessert.

I will not bother to re-watch. The acting was excellent by the way.

This is a good story, but it has a rushed final episode that leaves two important questions unanswered, to its detriment.

The acting, music and script are all excellent. The characters feel fleshed out and real, even if the tennis sequences feel somewhat janky but that can be overlooked given we are watching actors not athletes. Some of the crowd CGI was also a bit ropey (note to directors, it is OK in keeping to close shots). On a personal note, it was great to see David Troughton (always a favourite). Aidan Turner and Ella Lily Hyland put in admiral performances.

The story had a nice twist as you try and fathom out if Justine is being a jealous vindictive person or someone psychologically damaged from a traumatic ordeal. I liked the fact you were guessing up until the end, which brings me to some of the issues with the show.

The character of Polly who was pivotal in bringing down Glenn was introduced in the final episode. That is insane. A better idea would be to bring the mystery of who was Polly earlier on and to play on that theme. It all felt a little rushed. The resolution of the show did not address what happened to Glenn's wife and kids and whether Luisa kept the baby. I presume we, the viewers, just make up our own conclusions. I came away thinking either the show ran out of money or the script writers just wanted a "happy ending" and avoided the issue of whether Luisa had an abortion or not as that was too divisive (so they can sell it to the Americans).

On a side note, IMDB - I don't get your algorithm. For the top cast, Aidan Turner does not even make it into top billing, and he is the second main character. Bizarre!

When watching old movies is it fair to be overly critical given the time when they were made? After all, films reflect the technology and film style in the time that they are made, unless a director, like Stanley Kubrick, pushes the envelope.

No doubt when War of the Worlds hit the cinema screens in 1953 it astonished audiences with its gritty depiction of aliens' hell bent on destroying the very planet they wish to colonise. The floating machines, the heat ray, the green laser blasts, the scary looking aliens with technicolour eyes and the phallic camera would have been quite terrifying for many viewers, back in the day. While all these elements work, the film is severely let down by a terrible script, wooden acting, and awful set designs.

To its credit the film sticks to the plot beats of the novel and even had the endorsing from the HG Wells family, but the script is terrible. Some of the things people said and did comes across as unintentionally funny. The pacing is also uneven. The first thirty minutes, before the machines let loose, is a bit slow with an unnecessary narrative of why the Martians chose the Earth and establishing characters with a rushed romance between a teacher and a "mature" student. It was the 1950s after all. Once the Martians attack, it was over before it began. When the military realised nothing could stop them, not even "the A Bomb", we were given a montage of World War II stock footage of burning cities and people running away. It came across as a bit cheap.

I did like the fact that towards the end, when all hope was being lost, people turned into mobs, and it was everyone for themselves. Very acute. But that is the problem with the film, for every one thing it did right, it was offset by some silliness, such as the hordes of people waiting to watch an atomic explosion, as if they were at a concert. Utterly bizarre. Or when the press finally got to question the military as to what was going on, the very first question was on the whereabouts of our hero scientist, a question that would have been nonsensical to anyone else but us viewers. Or the "bomb time" countdown. Or the fact all the scientists and military near the nuclear explosion had radioactive dust on their faces and clothes and were brushing it away like dandruff.

The technicolor looks magnificent and I would recommend watching this on 4K.

If there is one thing the French love to do more than making love, it is talking about being in love. You can quite safely categorise Les Amants in this genre.

As we follow the rich but self-induced dull life of Jeanne Moreau beautifully played by Jeanne Tournier, many questions are asked of the audience. Is her cuckold husband either oblivious of her affair with a polo player in Paris or too weak to put a stop to it? Either way he does not treat Jeanne badly, he is just boring. We get two scenes with Jeanne's daughter, Catherine. The love between mother and daughter is established, but there does not seem to be any internal conflict in Jeanne that her actions, especially towards the end of the film, would put that relationship at risk. Is Jeanne just selfish to the point she is careless? The story seems to imply that.

What the film triumphally does well is broach the subject of the dizzy happiness we feel when we are in love or think we are in love. Rational thought gets thrown out of the window, replaced by dreams of endless happy life. The sex scene between Jeanne and Bernard is one of the most honest and romantic depictions of what feels like when you go through the early stages of love. To the film credit it did not need to add any more lust to the scenes. Given such scenes were verbatim anyway, being the 1950s the film was subjected to censorship, it still did a great job in being provocative.

Personally, I found the film to be a little wanting. A much more interesting story would be the follow up. When Jeanne and Bernard drive off to their new beginning at the final scene, what became of them? Jeanne character towards the end feels like an antithesis to her desire for a cosmopolitan rich lifestyle which was established throughout the film. She is romantically involved with Bernard because he feels exciting, for now, but what happened the day after? When she comes to terms that this new man in her life has no money, what then? I found there were no consequence, or stake, to decisions made. It was as if all the characters could not think beyond the end of their nose. The film spent its entirety about how life is boring and when can I get my next shag? The film took the easy way out. It established all the elements of a classic showdown between a wife, a husband, two lovers and a friend who accomplices the affair, and did nothing with it.

The film is masterfully directed, beautifully shot (even if it does an obvious day for night) and instantly transports you to an innocent time long gone. Put it this way, its certainly French.

I just felt bad for Catherine. Her mum quite literally up sticks and disappeared. Was she Okay? Now, "that" is a film worth watching.

Upon listening to Mark Kermode's review of this film, he simply did not get it. Kermode stuck to the easy interpretation of the film, that the rich suck. Although the film touches upon the irresponsible, anathema of the rich, it goes way deeper than that in the third chapter when the survivors are on the island.

In a story reminiscent to the 1957 film, The Admirable Crichton, roles are flipped when the unskilled rich play second fiddle to the survival skilled poor. Here the power dynamics shift as Abigail uses her new dominate role, afforded to her by her survival skills, to take advantage. It began with food, than with sexual favours, followed by feeling masterful which comes from being the maternal leader at whatever cost. They say power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This film perfectly exemplifies this condition.

This film is about avarice. From Yaya's manipulation, to the rich guests' gluttonous lifestyle (which fate has a glorious way of vanquishing) to Abigail's exploitation of her position on the Island. Each of us plays to our strengths to survive, a statement that was made by the capitalist Russian Dimitry. Everyone was playing a game to survive, from lying to manipulation. They all appreciated that their life depended on playing a game of social skill. Whatever it takes.

The second chapter, The Yacht, is both hilarious as a straight-out comedy, but it is also very insightful about the divisions in society. The "lower-class" workers are literally found at the bows of the ship, while the white collar workers are found on the top decks (and who are prepared to put up with the foibles of the rich guests in anticipation of large tips) and who somewhat oblivious to the workers below them. For example Paula (the hostess) did not recognise her colleague, Nelson (the engine room engineer) and could not vouche that he was not a pirate. Then you have the rich, as usual, taking advantage of everyone as play things (the wonderful skint about having a forced swim). It is only the captain who understands the idiocy of the job but he spends his days drunk, uncomfortable with the fact he sold his socialist principles for a comfortable lifestyle.

This film is deep and funny.