Film Reviews by AB

All-American twaddle that teens may use as a mental health crutch but this film has nothing going for it

... make it into a US TV series based on the same character.

Produced by a French unit (hence the 'French' female lead), but this whole series (and I have suffered for everyone else by watching it) is so tedious and uninteresting, with very predictable storylines (see every US TV series in history), and the episodes have about as much tension and intrigue as an episode of 'Cagney and Lacey'.

Rent it, watch 2/3 episodes and then return it as you can predict every other episode in the whole series (plus the other 5 that they made, so they really stretched this travesty of 'entertainment' out)

Superb acting from Gary Oldman as WSC in a film that brought a tear to my eye, as we all know what was said, done, and achieved by the people of that time period.

A blend of history, politics, family, nationhood, drama and settings that felt exactly what I would have thought was going on at the time throughout lands in the world (except the USA who were "late on parade" (again)), but especially in the United Kingdom.

Yes - it is a drama and a film, but it repeats what was said on record, and the man had a way with words that are still quoted 80+ years on.

Can anyone remember word for word what the current crop of political pygmies said yesterday, last week, last month? No - but WSC is still quoted verbatim and they still resonate and mean something and can inspire.

Two little gripes - The King would NOT have said "Ay-dolf" (Hitler) but "Ah-dolf" and the subtitles had US spellings, but that is US arrogance as producers

Superb film - watch it and learn

... the same attractive heroine, compulsory attractive sister/friend who turns out to be gay (Waverly v Willow); sending demons to hell (this time with a gun heirloom); the questionable colleague ('Doc' Holliday v Angel); the know-it-all mentor.

The premise/sales pitch sounded better than this is turning out to be - watched half of series 1 but won't continue.

I have no idea what this (series 3) is about - far too many strands of separate storylines that are all incomprehensible, as if David Lynch threw together some drug-fuelled hallucinations and hoped that the viewing public would congratulate him on some genius of storytelling. If you read the synopses online, this garnered awards and plaudits about being "best TV of the 2010s" and praising it as being all sorts of superlatives. Sorry, you avant-garde reviewers, you must have been on the same substances as Lynch, as this is absolute balderdash and so confusing to we ordinary, thinking folk that the dustbin is probably the best place for this, as the links with the original Series 1 and 2 are so tenuous as to be irrelevant.

No story, just sentimental psycho-babble missing the sentiment. Who ever thought that this would make a film about a nobody, doing nothing, going nowhere should have their psycho-analyst on speed-dial. Pretentious art-house twaddle fit only for psychology students or people on Mogadon trying to cheer themselves up.

Avoid like the plague.

Just a pity there is not a zero-star rating available.

A mess of pseudo ideas mashed up into a film that only luvvies would regards as progressive or interesting or watchable. Storyline? None. Thought-provoking? Give me a break. Well-acted? my dogs act better than this rubbish. Who on earth thought that this could be a film? never mind being an interesting or audience-holding one? And what genre is it supposed to fall into? Science fiction? romance? Let's put it into 'pretentious crap' heading. Avoid. Gets one star because nothing lower can be awarded

Unfunny, dreadful implementation of an "art film". Pointless, story-less drivel that has nothing going for it for the majority of real-life non-luvvie human beings. Whoever gives this more than one star needs their brain examined

A slow burner of a film - like a fire, it starts as nothing and then builds encompassing things that seem to be out of range of the theme. Of course, the acting is spot on - characterisations are true to genre and Mark Rylance is at his superb best, with acting ability, diction and nuance. As others have said, this is Hitchcockian in style, but for modern influences. Be warned that you have to concentrate to keep hold of names and what the actions and decisions and logic have on the characters and groups and interactions in the scenario but this is one of the best films that I have seen for many a year with MR doing his usual fantastic job - one of these rarities in modern film and theatre: someone who can actually act by making the audience believe that the character is as per script, and is not labelled 'actor' because that what they decide to write in their passport (qv the number of vacuous personnel who stand in front of a camera or audience and talk but who could be Alexa or Siri or a brick with the belief that they convey). WATCH THIS

The storyline you can glean from a multitude of sources, and some production interpretation may come into play here, but the 'stuff you lot out there' attitude of the main character is what I love the best - let anyone who wants to , let them follow their dreams. Who is to say that his sons would not have become world disco champions (as they did) without some influence from their father? I would like to think that his own dreams, his own influence and his attitude drove them on to achieve their goal.

A very British, quirky, poignant film that perhaps should be used in psychology lectures or sports coaching courses about using your own psyche. Made me quite tearful at the credits as it showed that the family made themselves a world-wide name through use of their own actions, support, ability [and lack of] with their family dynamic and interaction, especially given the dead-end lives that everyone was destined for at the time and in the location

Very highly recommended

I like Westerns - always have done but this one, for a labelled 'classic' is, to me, nothing of the sort - nothing especially stands out to make it any different/ground-breaking/surprising from a multitude of others of the genre. Burt Lancaster gets his over-whitened teeth set in a rictus smile most of the time and gets to show off his circus skills as per usual in a scene (look up his background) but this ended up simply being a routine 'watch' and one that I can tick off as having seen. Gary Cooper is his usual laconic type and acts as the part demands, but BL seems to be taking it too seriously, trying to show that he is the 'baddie', not to be trusted. Nice to have the historical situation explained at the start to lend a background to what is going on

Given it two stars (even though that means "didn't like it", which is a bit over the top/below the belt?) of my opinion but couldn't quite give it 3 stars ("Liked it"). A 2.5 stars rating really

Quite awful film, too reliant on CGI, an obvious and poor storyline, a pool of average OTT acting and unbelievable outcomes.

Q: Why in these films are humans, when knocked about by androids, do not suffer any concussions, broken bones or serious internal injuries? When the main 'character' (loose description) yells "OW" when punching a rock (don't ask) but when kicked about like a football in a one-on-one takes it on the chin (or ribs, legs, arms, body ...) and gets up as if nothing has happened?

Only watch if you have nothing to do in your life (like shampooing the goldfish, washing the apple tree or vacuuming the lawn)

I still cannot fathom in my own mind why I ordered this - someone, somewhere must have been drunk enough to recommend it in a review, which I believed.

OK - the storyline is predictable but the playout is enjoyable. Nicolas Cage is his usual underrated self but plaudits must be given to Ryan Kiera Armstrong playing his daughter: will go places, as an actress with confidence at such a young age, especially if she continues to use those eyes to convey feelings as she does here. Glad to see that the suggested twisted murder of the wife was not gone into detail but was left to the imagination - if only other recent films would learn that lesson of the mind. As a lover of westerns, I liked this film and would recommend it to you.

To my mind, a mess of a film with too many psychological angles in it to be a worthwhile story - even the reveal is done in a scene that lasts no more than 30 seconds by my reckoning and even then is done with a 'this is what it is' attitude. If the film is so deeply mind-blowingly different, then take a bit longer to explain to us mere humans what the whole lot is *supposed* to be about and how the plot is supposed to exist - who exists where and how and how they got there - are they really 'there' or is it all illusionary?

As a mere human male, perhaps the whole psychological fem-dram things passes me by but I could only re-watch this to try and find some new if some explanation was a bit more forthcoming.

very good drama played out mainly via the legal procedures and courtroom but do not let that distract you as to how watchable this film is. Cruise is as annoying as ever (and he not one of my favourite actors) as his character always seems to have the upper hand and be the sole driving force of the defence team (isn't Demi Moore supposed to be the senior officer here?) but the unravelling on what actually went on in the story is well structured and how he goes about extracting that information is a typical lawyer sequence of thought processes and actions. Well worth a watch