jrarichards Reviews

The Last of Us (2023– )

In some ways a step forward from other dystopias, but with some disappointments

[9/10 · 30 May 2023]

Leaving aside all other aspects, if acting is your thing you're probably going to admire Britain's Bella Ramsey in the starring role of Ellie. Even if she is 18 playing 14, what she does is still a great achievement. Ellie will make you laugh, earn your sympathy, shock you and have you open-mouthed in admiration. She's just the right mix of kid and not-kid.

If "Fear the Walking Dead" does show us the apocalypse on its way (while the original TWD did not), TLOU does offer us something pretty great in the first episode. Nobody can really buy the world breaking down in literally days, but still if it did happen, it might look a bit like what we see, and its sad, dramatic, scary, and also pithy (given COVID).

Probably your going to get a sinking feeling in the second half of E1, thouh, when you find "careworn, grizzled stop-at-nothing rebels fighting against an authoritarian regime" (for the millionth time), but fear not, as this is just a phase...

The guiltiest pleasure - accessible since the BBC first made "The Survivors" in the 1970s - is that we as the audience will imagine ourselves among those said survivors (as opposed to among the absolute mountains of dead), and we will imagine the birds singing and the sun shining and us growing stuff, and life going on somehow (even if we are unlikely to pause and think what, say, the consequences would be of a cancer diagnosis (not that anybody WOULD be there to diagnose)). Of course in "The Road" that was the fate that befel Viggo's character.

Here much of America is now in essence empty, but not at all in the ruination envisaged by Cormac McCarthy ... to the extent that one wonders why anyone would linger in urban Quarantine Zones. One reason is the rural starvation scenario depicted in E8 - but that episode is joined by E9 as mostly a bit of a dud, at least in the sense that we see what we have seen before (though not herds of giraffes roaming in Salt Lake City - which is a beautiful and real-looking moment).

Indeed, TLOU goes even further than FTWD (Season 4 Episode"Laura") in suggesting that, for periods, for a very few lucky and well-organised people, post-apocalypse life might be rich and even beautiful. The episode in question is Number 3 here ("Long, Long Time") and it breaks new ground in a host of ways, and also explains why we need to have this pandemic break out in 2003, in order to have 20 years behind us by 2023 (also necessitating a great 1960s Prelude of a scientist (John Hannah) forecasting in a gobsmacking way what a fungal pandemic might be able to do).

To cut to the chase here, E1 is good, E2 likewise (especially the beginning), E3 is amazing, E4 and 5 are good, and E7 is fine. This then looks like an above average series for its profile. Indeed, at the best moments, a series even of this genre is able to look fresh and innovative.

The rebel bits aforesaid look over-familiar, though, and the idea that an ostensibly God-fearing community is actually run by a psychotic fake-preacher is just plain insulting.

The Infected here are indeed scary, but (just as with TWD) the series would never work if we over-focused on them. Key character Joel (Pedro Pascal), though of course essential to the whole series, does not ultimately look like a cohesive person. While his gradual shift over to a fatherly role is understandable enough (if a bit unlikely-looking), his insistence on killing absolutely everybody goes beyond what we can accept in the latter part of the series (especially E8 and 9). Desperate as the situation may look, we cannot really maintain sympathy for someone so utterly ruthless and without mercy. His multiple-slayings to keep Ellie safe do indeed look "comic-book" in the worst sense of that phrase, and are a million miles away from the most innovative and triumphant moments of the series, of which there are more than a handful.

Nanny and the Professor (1970–1971)

The Paraclete at work for the Kids of America

[10/10 · 2 April 2023]

Never having seen this on TV, I was "sent" this by Youtube two days ago. There is not much of the series available there, so I am not an expert, but I "see" enough from one full episodes plus clips to get the message. Whether the makers even realised it or not, this has profoundly religious/spiritual/Christian content. The theme song tells us that Nanny brings love more than magic, and it is clear that though this looks similar to "Bewitched" and "Jeannie" or Mary Poppins, the powers here are indeed from love, but - since the Holy Spirit brings love and truth (as well as the mercy, healing and cleansing that derive from that), He offers wisdom and discernment and prophecy, all of which Juliet Mills's Nanny has. And, with the Holy Spirit, the life-art spatial and philosophical boundary is blurred so the benefits of the show come out beyond the screen - the 1960s/1970s temporal boundary was indeed a very specific time of change, but this series sought to keep American kids on track. The name Phoebe is "bringer of light", and Nanny admits that there are "small miracles" surrounding her activity. The theme song admits that Figalilly is a strange name, but it is one that refers to two key plants mentioned directly by the Saviour of the World. The fig had a mixed press with Him, going beyond parable into actions, as He actually killed one stone-dead when it failed to produce fruit at the time He needed it! The lillies of the field are praised for their innocence and beauty, and for the fact that the Creator loves them even though they are in essence "idle". Nanny is far from idle, and one project she works on concerns the car of the family, which is known as "Arabella" - meaning "yielding to prayer". It has the number plate Job423 - and if you look at the Book of Job 42:3, you find Job saying: "You asked, 'Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge? Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know'". Pretty good and fitting in and of itself, but in the wider context of: "Then Job replied to the Lord: "I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted". Nanny says often in the series that there are no impossible things, which also echoes The Bible more or less directly.

In one episode, Nanny stops the Prof from actually hitting his kids after they broke and failed to mend his favourite golf club. She tells him to count to ten (Commandments) before venting his anger. The Prof notes elsewhere that science cannot explain everything, and sees that Nanny goes beyond science.

Interesting that other reviewers notice feelgood and wholesome and so on (and even anachronism for 1970-1971, though remember "Godspell" the great and beautiful movie from British Director David Greene came out in '73 - the same year as "The Exorcist")

Indeed, as we know, in '74 Juliet Mills appears in "Beyond the Door" (also known as Chi Sei? In Italian - meaning "who are you?"). This is a clear and non-random switch for the actress (possibly couched in secular terms of her wishing to avoid typecasting), given that Nanny indeed always DID know who was beyond the door of the Professor's home (it was one of her hallmarks). The "Door" movie is a kind of cross between the aforementioned "Exorcist" and "Rosemary's Baby", because in it the actress has gone from being Juliet to being mother of the D****l's spawn (it is her third child). That character is Jessica (meaning "God is watching") Barrett - meaning "strength of the bear". Again not by coincidence, the Prof in Nanny was named Everett (meaning "strength of the boar")!!!!

Richard Long died a month to the day after the first (Italian) release of "Beyond the Door", while other cast members of the Nanny series had their life problems, sometimes very serious indeed.

And indeed from 1 John 5: 19 we learn (paradoxically, given John's love for the Lord) that: "We know that we are of God, and that the whole world is under the power of the e*il one". Sure enough, the Darkness tries to harm forms of worldly art receiving divine inspiration and achieving transcendence.

There were in fact 3 series of "Nanny" in jjust the two years and it is apparent - from the episode titles at least - that an attempt was made to bring more negative/worldly content in - 3rd-season titles include the words "tangled web", "jinx", "witch", "poltergeist". The first season titles are nothing like that. The last-ever episode is "whatever happened to Felicity?" (felicity means happiness), while the penultimate eposide is "Goodbye Arabella, Hello" (where we can note the aforesaid significance of the car).

The series is known to have lost out because the beautiful relationship portrayed between Mill's beautiful and warm Nanny and Richard Long's handsome and kind Professor never turned sexual. Even though it CANNOT be said it lacked chemistry! The earth(l)y world wanted them to "bring it on", but this particular series was too pure and spiritual for that, God bless it.

As indeed He did.

The Middle (2009–2018)

A heck of a lot of interest?

[7/10 · 28 December 2022]

The most fun you will have with "The Middle" is not necessarily laughing at it (though you might do that from time to time). Rather it will come as you try to work out how subversive this family-founded sitcom really is, and just who is sending up who! Frankie (female) and Mike (male) are an ostensibly boring couple who nevertheless decided that their youngest kid ought to be called "Brick Heck". Now I don't know how it sounds to American ears, but to a Brit it's not seemingly a great start for a child to be offered. Given that Brick is "on the spectrum" and has various issues, the joke is a somewhat harsh one. Indeed Mike and Frankie are BY NO MEANS averse to sending their kids up, feeling disappointment with them, being a little too accepting or dismissive of their flaws and failures. They regularly plead guilty to poverty, lack of culture, lack of drive (in the direction of laziness); and there has never been a tradition or virtue they won't seek to ridicule in the interests of as easy a time as their lives can manage to offer. Are these the people of the Rust Belt who voted for Trump, or is there a deliberate attempt here to joke about those self-same people? They get involved in various schemes and scams, yet they purport to be everybody in Middle America, and at moments they swing back to mainstream mode with a small dose of homespun syrup of the kind we thought all American family sitcoms ALWAYS pursue. Now while the Heck family are no oil paintings, they are clearly not designed by the makers to be objectionable losers ... but they just kind of manage it anyway. And when they come into contact with what pass for authority figures by the standards of Orson, Indiana, they do not so much clash with them, or work to triumph over them (as we would normally anticipate). Rather they are convinced that they can get by entirely without them. Daughter Sue sometimes "disappoints" the family in this way by courting such people. Yet she seems so entirely doomed to failure in most areas that the caricature is a little disturbing. We are waiting for these kids to "come good", but they do not exactly do so, and when oldest son Axl decides he no longer needs a football scholarship to keep him going at college, the dad rejects that (as every dad in every sitcom ever did) before finally agreeing the son is old enough to decide for himself (as every dad in every sitcom ever did), only to be told by Axl himself that the money is needed and there is no other straightforward way of getting it, so any other life-related or moral niceties have to be laid aside. And these parents ocasionally get drunk with their kids, or are sometimes bailed out by their kids when in such an inebriated condition. Such is "The Middle", and it is kind of interesting to witness it.

The Stranger (I) (2020)

A source of guilty pleasures but also a teacher of lessons

[9/10 · 24 September 2022]

Another transfer of Coben concepts to the UK, where they do fine, and let a near-galaxy of British stars do their (good) thing. Again a group of ostensibly-respectable middle-classers ought to be content, and lack nothing, yet actually mess up, have dirty secrets and link up in ways not always known. Secrets are key to the plot here. While you will have "fun" if you buy that folk are quite ready to be criminal or even kill, the reward for playing along will be to mull (as does hero Adam) controversially on the beauty (?) of the truth, and on the possibility that secrets might be better hidden!

Expedition X: Into the Alien Ocean (2021) Season 3, Episode 7

The countdown to full disclosure apparently continues

[9/10 · 31 August 2022]

The previous instalment and this one come against the background of numerous other "Discovery" and "History" shows of similar content (only ostensibly in competition with one another???); and indeed in the company of other episodes of "Expedition X" of much less heavyweight content. And of course that is EXACTLY how the powers that be want it. Serious mixed in with rhubarb, a bit at a time. Just as they offer hype in advance of a June 2021 Pentagon report just 9 pages long and representing new heights (depths) with the skill of how to play things down maximally while leaving total dynamite present between the lines.

Here we have Jess and Phil (who seem to have DISTINCT chemistry, which is actually quite a sweet plus of the show) mounting a relatively serious scientific effort, clearly with a measure of funding, with good equipment, and with Luis Elizondo actually meeting them, taking a buffeted heli-flight with them, and ultimately going diving with Phil.

Yes really!

This is the same Elizondo whose regular claim was that "they" know more, even though he himself led AATIP and most likely knows more about what is really going on than anyone on the planet.

It's fake in some way, but Elizondo here is a reasonably sympathetic figure, as usual.

For those who are keeping count, as I try to, the new stuff about old stuff that came out in these two episodes included:

• that the "Tic-Tac" event was part of a wider issue that included craft capable of huge change of altitude as well as transfer from air to sea, and definitely speeds into the tens of thousands (can't ever recall this last fact being made quite as clear as it is here)
• that Elizondo himself has been a witness
• that capturing UAPs on film IS a difficult thing, given that they themselves (not merely the photos of them) may be blurry!!!!

Remarkably, given the years of hearing about UFOs but not seeing anything, these episodes of Expedition X join the ranks of recent "Skinwalker Ranch", "Contact", Chuck Zukowski and other popular shows in ACTUALLY FILMING UFOs/UAPs on the basis of even single nights of observation. Admittedly, the level of detail is poor, but still the objects are seen and do strange things (in this case travelling at 20,000).

It should be clear that, were it NOT to appear casually in the context of a popular, not-too-serious show, the last fact alone - that very high-speed objects were readily filmed and seen by us the audience - would have been utterly earth-shattering. But nobody (except me a bit here) gathers all this together, and it slips through, and even the June 2021 report is largely unknown to most people. And - remarkably - no scientists that we know about or see are actually doing science with this info, leaving it to the TV.

"Don't look up" is just a kind of non-real-world joke, right?

Wrong, scientific breakthrough and government policy of enormous weight being done via private-sector and media channels with a view to bagatelizing it all, is what we are getting now, and who would have even thought that would be possible?

Yet here we are.

Assuming what we see on this and other shows is not all fake, we are not going to believe that suddenly it got easier for us the audience to be shown things. Somebody is greenlighting this ... or else the craft are becoming more and more regular visitors.

In the light of the global events of 2020-2002, I feel somewhat disturbed by all of this, even as I am intrigued and even excited.

But if anybody thinks countdown to disclosure is happening, all the evidence seems to be showing that it indeed is.

Moonfall (2022)

"Ancient Aliens" gets its own "blockbuster" movie at long last

[6/10 · 20 June 2022]

Those seeking a little tiny bit of good news can rest assured that "Moonfall" is BETTER than "Independence Day: Resurgence", even though it shares enough of the latter's faults to be clearly from the same stable.

It is not as good as "Independence Day" (and does not even try to be so, taking itself far less seriously) and it is not as good (or compact/cohesive) as "2012" or "The Day after Tomorrow," even though it pursues perhaps the most ambitious "plot" ever (semi-)implemented in a sci-fi movie. The tsunamis and tectonic what-nots from "2012" are here, while short-term climate shifts even grander than in "The Day After Tomorrow" are also present ... even though they are here just side effects of an even BIGGER issue.

And so they are made to look and feel like sideshows, even though you might expect to see this as a special effects movie, if it is anything at all (for you would obviously not be coming here for great acting, direction or even music, now would you?)

(Notwithstanding the fact that David Arnold's music from the original "Independence Day" - so VEEEEEERY long ago now - was actually great ... and "genuine")

And while "ID", "DAT" and "2012" all tried to show how much death and destruction was being done as the Earth shifted to a new state, and while "ID:R" at least resorted to CGI to have loads of little dots on screen dying, "Moonfall" does not even deal with death, except in the context of one extended kind of family we are supposed to care about, but find it VERY hard to do so. The trend has thus been maintained, with death and destruction becoming entirely throwaway (to the point where it has now simply been thrown away - as we see buildings drop, but precious few people).

Paradoxically, then, the message of hope (absurd hope, but nevertheless) introduced is stronger than we've ever seen in an Emmerich movie.

And here there is a deliberate leaning towards certain things being "meant to be". The movie kicks off with "Africa" by Toto, as one of the most joyous and somehow-meaningful songs ever sung, and we actually have a piece of script betwen characters dwelling on the fact that the word in the song is "BLESS the rains". Given the meaninglessness of 99.3% of the dialogue in this movie, this nuanced detail and focus looks especially intriguing. We also have "last shall be first" motivation writ large in the whole piece, and even moments when the destructive forces being unleashed actually act to save individual lives (which we see saved), even as they destroy many millions of others (which we do not). And while New York is of course destroyed we do NOT see the new World Trade Center go. They simply could not do that, could they? There is thus something suprisingly upbeat and Noah's-Ark biblical about a few of those strands...

Given the pandemic(s) and war and global warming and loss of biodiversity (especially insects, amphibians and so on) and inflation and supply-chain difficulties on Earth as we know it, we actually need that "new start" kind of vibe; and here we actually do have an antidote to "Don't look up". But to get that message in, and to quietly forget about the vast destruction wrought in the process, we simply have to .... SPOILER COMING ....

...accept that the Moon Landings of 1969 did indeed find bad stuff that NASA has been keeping quiet (conspiracy theory); the Moon is not a natural satellite, but is hollow; we as a species do indeed originate from seeded DNA, and efforts are still being being made to protect us and the planet from the "dark forces" of rampant nanotechnology (and possibly other problems too). So yes, this is indeed like an "Ancient Aliens" episode; it does indeed offer a kind of "thanks be to God-ish" feelgood; and it does set up for a sequel on an even grander scale.

Since the ultimately ambitious (unsurpassable) plot has now been included in a movie, a few points have to be awarded for the ambition of that. But to go "up" in this way, Roland Emmerich has had to abandon quality in so many of the ways where things you would like to see in a movie are concerned.

But if the movie is actually a hollowed-out shell, well that would not in fact be so inappropriate, would it?

And maybe, just maybe, the makers' measure of courage in presenting this story is actually designed to leave us wondering about real life more than about the movie, since we cannot really give much of a fig for the latter, or its characters?

Perhaps Emmerich's real effort here is to suggest to us that several of those old conspiracy theories really are more conspiracy than theory? How weird - and perhaps necessary - would that actually be? Well, weird enough for the real-world 2022 as we know it (as following on from the real-world 2020 and 2021).

Ancient Aliens: William Shatner Meets Ancient Aliens (2021) Season 16, Episode 6

Really good fun, and pretty intelligent too

[9/10 · 9 April 2022]

Let's face it - there are millions of us on this planet for whom William Shatner was and has been a key part of something very, very special indeed - life-changing and life-shaping. While the voice is very much what it was, the face is obviously a little different. But still, at age more or less 90 when this episode was made, Shatner is looking good and has presence. Our expectations of Shatner - as of Captain Kirk, his most durable creation - are of somebody lively, sassy, charismatic, emotional, a little pushy, able to think (but also think on his feet), with a certain sense of humour and an element of brusqueness that so famously rubbed so many of his fellow cast-members up the wrong way. That's Shatner/Kirk and this is whom we encounter in this episode, and at some level anyone who loves Trek (and therefore Shatner) will actually find themselves thanking the Lord that the man-icon is still with us.

Really and truly that is the feeling, and it would be a good starting point for any review, not least for a series like Shatner's "Unexplained" also shown on History Channel.

But here it's far more of an enjoyable ride, as - given the pandemic-format "Ancient Aliens" (studio-bound, recaping, going back to old footage, making contacts online), we have here the genius idea of getting WS around the table with many of the talking heads. This is male-only company as it happens, and there's a touch of the "Officers' Mess" about it. Occasionally even "laddishness". But - believe or believe not in the "Ancient Alien Hypothesis" - it IS possible to accept that Childress, Henry, Taylor, Pope, Tsoukalos and the others are LIKEABLE. And in the lively banter we see here, in the attempts of one to even scramble over the others in seeking to best convince Shatner (portrayed as the open-minded sceptic) of what they believe, the pundits only reinforce an image of (boyish?) enthusiasm coupled with basic decency. If these guys are frustrated that the mainstreamers ridicule them (as they may indeed be), the desire to present and enlighten overcomes any aspect of bitterness and resentment in them, and it is quite a pleasure to see it.

While the odd ribald remark comes out, there is no sourness and sarcasm here, and these people give a warm and pleasing account of themselves and their beliefs. They want Shatner to believe too, they produce quite strong arguments, and a lot of fun and laughter and - yes indeed - humanity - is on display.

While it is somewhat incorrect to pin this whole concept on Eric Von Daniken (See Harold Wilkins, Walter Drake, Robert Charroux and Peter Kolosimo - who were all out in print before Eric, in the '50s and ealy '60s), it again has to be said that von Daniken called up online for this episode does himself plenty of maestro-type favours with his evident gentleness matching neatly with that surprisingly soothing voice. Many, many times the man has been portrayed in a hugely negative light, yet none of that really comes across - surprisingly enough.

The more I watched, the more I found it priceless. While plenty of stuff from the series (even over many years) is rehashed here, and while the science is stronger and weaker, the round-the-table idea WAS a wise one, and it makes for a surprisingly compelling and fun TV experience.

Changeling (2008)

Somewhat flawed film-making, but still hugely impactful

[9/10 · 9 January 2022]

Many of us think we know LA in 1927-30, as we've seen it as background to the films of Laurel and Hardy, from 1929 also with sound. They carry pianos up steps and drive the streets of new houses going up and palm trees still quite young in many places. They also visit various plush-looking mansions, even though they are often just one step up from being bums. They are frequently hassled and misunderstood, even though they are typically gentlemanly in much of their conduct.

God seems unable to stop all evil in this world, but He can be very creative and of course loving in offering other paths, and it is worth asking if he brought (British) Laurel and (Georgia-hailing) Hardy together in all their funny innocence in order to ensure that Angelinos might find some childlike joy and beauty in their wonderful films ... as some antidote to the evil present all around them.

Maybe that sounds far-fetched, but 1927 LA brought the horrible and shocking murder of 12-year-old Marion Parker - by a man claiming "providence" told him to do the deed. Just a year after that a peak of evil would be reached with the (revealing of) the so-called "Wineville Chicken Coop Murders" that occupies about half of Angelina (!!!) Jolie's film "Changeling". She stars in the film as the mother of a kidnapped boy...

The key person involved in that crime, and the grisly and appalling murders that followed in Wineville (though NOT the only adult wrongdoer in the case, as this movie suggests he might be) was tried in 1929 and hanged in 1930. The trial thus coincided more or less with L&H's first talkie "Unaccustomed as we are" in which Edgar Kennedy stars as a cop called Kennedy; while 1930 brought - believe it or not - "The Laurel and Hardy Murder Case"!

In general "Babe and Stan" in their films regularly fall foul of LA authority figures, as well they might given the second strand to "Changeling" - the cynicism and corruption manifested by the LAPD, acting in support of the then city Mayor but also doing their own thing, and riding roughshod over rights and right (and truth) in the process.

If that meant gaslighting, and even declaring people (especially women) insane or mentally incapacitated as a convenient way of getting rid of them and their inconvenient truths, so be it. Probably (??) better that than just murdering people straight out, which the Gun Squad from Police Chief (and later American Nazi) James Edgar ("2-Gun") Davis may well have done... We know this sort of things from "Gangs of New York", but that was the 1850s-60s, not the late 1920s!

A fairly key religious belief (which I had always tended to reject, I must say) is that small sins help contribute to, and most likely become, big sins. This movie - which is hard to take in many places - shows us JUST how that works, as person after person shown here is willing to do small evil things when told to, because the hierarchy expects that; willing to lie and to prop up a whole edifice built on lies.

In the midst of all that, there is one cop of sufficient courage and integrity to listen seriously when a kid speaks sincerely from a on overwhelmingly sad heart. The film's contrast between this one strand of goodness in the middle of all the evil is understated, but comes over just fine. And it only takes one good, kind, understanding man to bring the whole evil crashing down.

Having made the film, Director in the shape of the legendary Clint Eastwood summed things up with his conclusion that LA never had a golden age. This is clearly 99% true, with the one exception that that era did produce the endlessly simple pleasures of Laurel and Hardy. Personally, I think that was a specially-intended divine gift, and one that was surely very much needed, as the film makes plain indeed.

A Quiet Place Part II (2020)

Reasonably effective augmentation, but sticks to its be-quiet microscale, as it unfortunately must...

[8/10 · 9 January 2022]

Remember how "The Walking Dead" hit the ground running and so we needed "Fear the Walking Dead" to go back and see how things started? Well, "A Quiet Place II" parallels that situation, by offering us a (short, pre-titles) sequence of small-town descent into alien-invasion chaos that is reasonably moving and reasonably scary. We needed that. But even as that world of Upstate New York is taken by surprise, along with us out here in audience land, we know with some discomfort that this is a fake reality that must force a return to the small-picture story of the survival of (elements of) the Abbott Family, as they are now minus a martyred dad as well as the one kid.

This is indeed what happens, and in fact - once the first credits have rolled - we continue back precisely where AQP1 left off.

Why is that so?

Because these aliens with the great ears but poor eyes, somewhat inexplicably murderous (and also voracious??) as they seem to be AT ALL TIMES, have no apparent overarching plan (though they presumably ARE present in great numbers), and they clearly abandon entirely the immensely high tech that presumably must have been present to allow them to reach Earth, so basically travelling around "naked" and by no means at all invincibly.

And what does that mean for the present movie's first scene? It means that that (actually quite effective) scene would not merely have featured a pretty scary fiery descending thing in the sky, but also helicopters, jets and missiles everywhere in the air, and artillery, mortars, tanks, heavy machine guns and what have you on the ground. As Capt. Steven Hiller in "Independence Day" might have reminded us, the US has 12,000 aircraft waiting to "whoop ET's ass", so empty skies might (and indeed do) look dramatic, but that's just not how it would have been.

Against that non-story, irreconcilable big picture, of course we MUST perforce return to the one-trick of the Abbotts trying their best to keep quiet in their own lives of much reduced richness, and thus a touch of "Walking Dead" type gratuity and sadism, whereby all those happy things - and above all all those horrible and painful things - that we would normally make a noise about, have to be greeted and treated with silence ... OR YOU"RE DEAD. This is a quiet place, and the essence of A QUIET PLACE the movie too (two).

On that basis we get here a mini-story with a mini-plot that echoes "Walking Dead" type issues, and indeed ones that go back to HG Wells (early 20th C) and John Wyndham (1950s), whose Martian and triffid encounters look quite a bit like what we see here.

So AQPII looks more like an episode than a movie, and all the more so as it would be stretching things to say that we have much in the way of either acting or great direction or great camerawork or great music here. However, it is a workmanlike enough performance, so is not entirely without its viewing pleasures...

Don't Look Up (2021)

Deep impact (!) here as proper, even ideal, balance is struck between satire and seriousness

[10/10 · 28 December 2021]

Adam McKay is the man who gave us "Vice" - a movie that went for Dick Cheney, but still steered largely clear of 9/11 and did not savage either Dubya or Rummie too much. Here he's back with a more-theoretical and less-targeted subject, which ought to be giving him free(r) rein to be as biting and pointed and socio-political as he wants.

To a great extent it does.

Furthermore, the whole making of this film falls within the pandemic era, in which the link between science and administration is obviously front and centre. The question of how an incompetent and basically media-hyped US President would deal with a global existential threat is not pure theory! Likewise the space race between the public and private sectors, the simply ridiculous-cum-obscene (and still-growing) wealth of certain 21st-century "entrepreneurs", the trivialisation of news, the increasing difficulty encountered with changing people's minds even in the face of strong evidence (even as minds can paradoxically be swayed with idiotic or hurtful or rabble-rousing material with the greatest of ease), the struggle between virtual and real-world existence, the triumph of the markets over the real economy, Modern Monetary Theory sggesting that we can actually afford anything we want, the lack of or curtailment of or artificial boosting of certain important stories universally through all mainstream media despite the supposed competition between them, and the fact that the real-life existence of UFOs was smuggled into a tiny June 2021 Pentagon report that represents a new peak in playing down earth-shattering stories to the point where many people did not notice it at all!

As this movie echoes and repurposes in a human direction the cosmic reason for the demise of the dinosaurs, it approaches all the above issues and a great deal more, and strives to be waspishly funny with it. At times it succeeds, but the thoughtful viewer will have PLENTY to chew on, and may still find the tears not so far away, not least as the Director once again deploys his cut-away technique to show us the cultural and architectural and wondrous natural beauty of our planet, also reminding us that an "extinction-level event" has its aesthetic and biological consequences for the whole universe, going just a bit beyond human beings and their mortal lives...

The "ELE" - the aforesaid "extinction-level event" takes us back to the immortal film "Deep Impact", which "Don't Look Up" much resembles. But times have indeed changed. In "Deep Impact" (not played for laughs), the President and Cabinet kept things secret while making the best public-sector (mainly military) plans they could. Today, in this movie, we have the story leaking out, managed, played down and hidden under junk, with a private-sector, algorithm- and app-wielding entrepreneur coming in to save the day with only a military fig-leaf. He is seemingly a Brit - oh yet another bad-guy Brit in a US movie, whatever next? But Sir Mark Rylance as Sir Peter Isherwell does this firmly with an American accent (why so?). Isherwell wants to make a profit, create jobs, change the world forever by exploiting the superabundance of rare earths and other minerals the approaching comet has to offer. He actually pays off Chile to compensate it for its acceptance of the tsunami it is going to receive! The Russians, Indians and Chinese take the more statist traditional approach to the matter (as well they might), but fail in the attempt.

The private-sector hold on science and even its beloved technology likewise proves flawed, and a key message here contrasts our frequently RIDICULOUS 21st-century demeanour with an overblown self-importance and lack of humility and inablity to recognise how much good and wonder has been given to us.

Satire is a narrow line to tread, and here (for me) it is trodden well. Why? Because the special effects are special enough, the acting stops short of farce, and seriousness is NOT abandoned in the chase for the bizarre or the ludicrously comic. The messages about our reality are all there, the sadness of what we have done with our amazing planet not hidden, the pomposity and fakeness of many parts of our existence is writ large (but only slightly larger than the reality), and our true delicacy and overwhelming lack of immortality are made plain.

There might be echoes here of the scary-ish 2009 Nicholas Cage movie "Knowing" (though the Plan B in "Don't Look Up" is a more domestic one), as well as of the great "Seeking a friend for the end of the world" (whose scope is more limited, even as the satire is not so different, while much of the blame and bite is lacking).

But "Don't Look Up" manages and ending more devastating in its impact than the above movies, and that is an achievement. Quite possibly you will leave this movie in subdued silence.

I did.

Yet something unbelievable (for a British viewer and for those who adhere to the concept of satirical products needing to throw the baby out with the bathwater) is the telling-beyond-limit fact that the film (more or less) ends with superb spontaneous, genuine, heartfelt and meaningful prayer to God. It's remarkably humbling and moving and right that that should be so, and this message radiates out beyond the film into our lives in what looks like a really messed-up world...

Now is really, really, really the time for that kind of spiritual rebirth.

Safe (2018)

The destructive construct here can be fun in some way

[8/10 · 1 November 2021]

"Safe" from Harlan Coben proceeds from the fairly attractive premise that a gated community designed to keep its inhabitants in their expensive and pretty houses safe from the outside actually succeeds in trapping most of the dangers - indeed most of the sin - within its walls. 8 episodes is quite a lot of space to build on the premise that most middle-class British people are flawed or even rotten if we just scratch down below the surface; and we have seen this done already in "Doctor Foster", "Collateral" and "Unforgotten" to name but 3; but "Safe" holds its own and softens the blow a bit by having some characters turn out as MORE decent than we thought. On the more minus side, we have to swallow whole to plot assumptions - 1) that these characters deeply entwined with each other through (long-term) shared place of residence are still nevertheless able to achieve a measure of independence of action from each other, and thus go on functioning, and 2) that an ex-army doctor now serving as a surgeon in a hospital has the resources of all kinds - and the mix of hot blood and cold blood - needed to pursue a complex and dangerous investigation in parallel with the official one, purely on the basis of his being a desperate father. This is actually a plotline visited in numerous films (not least "Don't Say a Word" with Michael Douglas which would have to be seen as better than "Safe"), but the star of Dexter Michael C. Hall does OK with this, even as Marc Warren as his mate Pete Mayfield does a still-better job with his more-rounded character. Nigel Lindsay offers his fairly typical "everyman" role, but it comes off well, even with moments of dark comedy - as his character again comes to the rescue of his daughter in a chaotic if devoted way. The core message here is actually quite a spiritual one about the burden of sin and how that sin will indeed "find us out". But all the more so it follows a risky but interesting assumption that kids REALLY need to be reined in by adults, even as kids who were NOT reined in in this way have difficulties ever growing up. It's quite dark in fact, and "Safe" will satisfy you reasonably with its intricacy of plotting; but it will not in any way be an edifying spectacle enriching your life. Still, Pete has his Emma and that's something...

54 Days: America and the Pandemic (2021) Season 1, Episode 2

Less science, more emotion, than expected, and that's special...

[10/10 · 23 October 2021]

If you think you can pass this programme by and it will not matter, you are wrong. We need this - all of us. If you imagine the experience is going to be a bit like a tense disaster movie, you are right; but quite possibly that experience will be more of a hauntingly sad one than a scary one. Watch and you will see just a smattering of politicians (Trump, Blasio, Cuomo, Newsom). You will see Dr Fauci look at his feet as he stands behind a President making cheery or combative speeches. Mostly though you will see - look into the eyes or even the souls - of some people (mostly women) who as scientists and civil servants (often both at the same time) are TRUE heroes, because they did something, they really took action, while in post as administrators/authorities in the health sector. These are good, caring, clever, gifted, thinking people, yet what you will mainly see them do on this documentary is take deep gulping swallows, clear their throats nervously, pause, look away, and - in several instances at least - stave off the tears that well up. These people have the least to be guilty about of anybody in America, when it comes to COVID, yet they cannot fully live with what they have been through or the decisions they took. They are regretful, they kick themselves, even though they should not. They carry the can (their Cross), shoulder the burden of responsibility.

God bless them!

As a TV experience this is an emotional one, rightly lauding at least a few civil servants who did all that could be expected of them, and offering mostly only between-the-lines condemnation of those who did not.

We still do not (never will) fully know what the enemy (the virus) was doing in these early first 56 days of the pandemic in the USA, but the scrappy official figures are plenty scary enough: from 214 cases and 17 deaths on March 6th to 54,453 cases and 780 deaths on March 24th (just 18 days later). But that was just the tip of a gigantic iceberg as the programme makes clear. COVID spread pretty much as it wanted to for weeks - indeed the programme offers the sad example of Patricia Dowd as first known victim in the USA (who died aged 57 on 6th FEBRUARY 2020).

The makers of this BBC programme approached the WH, SD, CDC, FDA, HHS, ASPR and NIH to see if they would give interviews (in 2021). None of those august bodies elected to do so...

George Clarke's National Trust Unlocked (2020– )

Precious, moving, heartbreaking, determined, of one piece with the bulldog or Dunkirk spirit

[10/10 · 16 October 2021]

British TV once had a certain reputation for "taping over" and therefore losing certain historically important or interesting items. Hopefully things are safer now, because this series needs to go straight to the archives to be kept safe. There is a delicate balance at work here. First of all George Clarke in and of himself balances the "cheerie chappie" with the "expert" with the "amateur Brit" and with the "moments of profound wisdom sage". But here he visits National Trust properties (about equally indoor and outdoor, and about equally breathtaking and more eccentric), to meet the skeleton staff who look afer them. Why so? Because everybody else is locked down, and nobody is visiting, nobody much is even walking in the open spaces, because even that is forbidden at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we find the main tension. Are we jealous of Clarke for going where we cannot? Do we resent him for his good fortune? Do we resent the National Trust for getting some free advertising (and guaranteed future income) from the programme? Not really! Rather, we accept that - for this time at least (until as Her Majesty put it in her outstanding pandemic broadcast "we will meet again"), George is us, representing us, taking his camera as our eyes. Of course there is nostalgia, longing, heartache and a moist eye as we watch. But he is almost like the astronaut or the first person venturing back into a disaster zone. He serves as our eyes and ears, but he takes our hearts and souls with him - to places familiar and loved. It's absolutely special, our beautiful country has never looked more so, and - while this doubtless raised the spirits and calmed the frustration of millions at home, it also offered salvation to thousands of Brits abroad (including myself - whose last return home was in late August 2019, and - for me at least, things are still not safe enough to go). A very precious programme indeed, nicely timed, perfectly pitched and a historical monument in and of itself...

The Good Doctor (2017–2024)

Hooked after 4 emotionally-charged and mostly masterly episodes!

[10/10 · 26 July 2021]

South Korea first came up with the formula represented by David Shore's American programme, which resembles its forebear in theoretically boiling down to: "what happens when medically-trained and medically-talented autistic savant from Dr Shaun Murphy joins the staff of a hospital?"

Obviously, this premise could not work at all if conviction in the title role were to be lacking, but IT IS NOT. Freddie Highmore is a British actor (though you would never know it) and has immense talent in and of himself. How he achieves what he does in the role is something a bit mysterious, but it's a compelling piece of work - at least after the four episodes of series 1 I have caught so far.

The makers are clever here as they use every trick in the book to step up the high-intensity (and question-posing) storytelling. The hospital featured here is typical of the genre in having its administrative-financial-legal versus medical issues, and senior staff - surgeons and otherwise - have their ego issues too. But they also have emotional, moral and ethical dilemmas of their own that are wonderfully brought into sharp relief thanks to the contacts with Shaun and thanks to comparisons we inevitably make with him. Shaun has little difficulty with honesty, but has bedside-manner issues, but then so do his colleagues, for a variety of reasons.

A further strand to the programme is a gradual unfurling of flashbacked stories from Shaun's past, and these again and again evoke a tremendous sympathy for the character from any viewer with a soul. Of course, these matters are less-known to (most of) his colleagues, though they receive at least hints of them; but that does not solve their central dilemma. Some in the hierarchy want to react with Shaun in the mix of encouragement and discipline that senior-junior interactions demand, but his condition ensures that he is just not up for that. In contrast, people on his own level would like to form the colleague-type bonds that Shaun is also largely incapable of.

Even those who do care or sympathise or feel pity are still not able to find easy answers as to how this close (at times life-or-death) cooperation is actually going to play out - and that is equally true whether they are fundamentally supportive or against the whole - pioneering - idea.

An element of the formulaic creeps in as we seem to have alternating episodes in which we are left feeling that the appointment of Shaun is a superb and forward-looking idea (given the lives he can save or improve the quality of) or else that it is a gamble that can just never come off (as even the most basic communications with a rather unresponsive Shaun are seen to require far more than just the words that go into them).

As if all that were not enough, we are also presented with a series of complex dilemmas from medical ethics, and a downside here (certainly for anybody expecting to spend time in hospital in the nearer future!) is that we presumably see far more borderline and tricky scenarios than exist out in the real world. There seems to be almost no such thing as "a routine operation" at the St. Bonaventure Hospital.

So we grit our teeth and live along with this series, sharing with the medicos as they face their difficult decisions, and sharing with tortured, childlike genius Shaun as he faces a host of difficult-cum-insurmountable "everyday" interactions every single day.

For anybody with reasonable emotional intelligence this an absolute feast of high quality, though potentially one that is inclined to leave the viewer needing a bit of (bed?) rest and recuperation after each episode!

Anyway, it's absolutely what TV should be about...

Tomb Raider (2018)

Entertaining enough, but more so in the first half!!!

[7/10 · 11 July 2021]

Director Roar Uthaug has some fun and joy to offer here that looks all the more attractive when seen from the perspective of pandemic world. But paradoxically (and sadly for him), there is less and less of that as we move from one segment of the film to the next.

Lara as delivered sassily enough by the delightful Alicia Vikander is intriguing at the film's outset, given the tension between her current, rather stagnating self and the heiress with country estate plus City of London tycoon she could and would be were she only to accept that the 7-year absence of her father, Lord Richard Croft (here Dominic West) is tantamount to his being dead.

That tension is a creative one, which by the way gels with much of the gentrified and less-gentrified reality of London - and indeed the film dotes on the great, diverse, wonderful British metropolis, as Lara sees both the slick and super-rich world personified by the offices of the family company somewhere near "The Gerkhin"; and a more rough-and-ready, wise-cracking (and distinctly happy-looking) East End. Lara resides, (occasionally sort of) works and has friends and acquaintances in that latter world, in which many around her put up with her quirks and foibles as they find her irresistible (a fate many in the audience may tend to share).

We in audience land of course know that this Lara is only sustainably interesting because of that other, more-sophisticated side (which we know will soon morph into adventure and danger), but that's a tricky paradox for the makers to deal with, given that many a filmgoer (in 2021 all the more so) will feel a tangible sense of loss and regret when the film leaves its (lovingly observed and actually quite lengthy presentation of) "London Lara" behind, for Hong Kong (as here substituted by South Africa). It's as if the makers knew instinctively that this first part of the movie is actually their best work - which it is!

However, the Hong Kong segment as Lara begins to find her feet as a feisty adventurer morphs nicely into a sea-journey to Japan, with all the delights and dangers that always entails; and truly we can argue that there are few things to complain about up that point in the fast-paced and fun movie.

But then we reach the real "Tomb Raider" element (of course half of the film and more), and it's NOT Indiana Jones and - though the key element of the story as revealed is reasonable and realistic enough (the film does not allow itself any supernatural moments of the kind Jones sometimes encounters) - it's NOT really as exciting as it might be; or worse - we are still probably in fact wondering if the Indian Restaurant owners' son back in London will ever pluck up the courage to ask out the lovely Lara!

Such is the delight and the dilemma-cum-tragedy of the 2018 "Tomb Raider". From the perspective of pandemic world at least, ordinary life for a pretty and bright young woman in a bustling and beautiful London seems more interesting to the film buff than does a lost cave on a remote Japanese island (notwithstanding the hard-to-credit coincidence of a pandemic-related truth regarding what that island actually conceals!!!)

Alicia Vikander offers a screen presence and is nice to watch. The three elements to her character's life have something going for them, but do we really want to see some of that personality and screen-time "wasted" on adventures of an archaelogical profile? That's a tough question ... and a tough break for the makers of the movie.

Edge of Tomorrow (2014)

Aliens splatter and are splattered ... in a film about limitless love!

[10/10 · 20 June 2021]

Yes, 2004 is 60 years on from 1944 and D Day, and 90 years on from "The Trenches", and both First and Second World Wars are tangibly honoured here in Doug Liman's film based on (but transcending) a Japanese manga novel by Hiroshi Sakurazawa. A great alliance is sending thousands of troops across the English Channel by sea - and by giant helicopters from Heathrow Airport - in order that a merciless and evil enemy - in the form of invading tentacled aliens that have taken over all of Europe - can be pushed back and ultimately defeated. Troops are even transported ready for embarkation by London Buses (as at the Somme). Operations in London are headed by Brendan Gleeson's Irish General (and Irishmen willing to fight with Britain against 2 ruthless German enemies were the unsung heroes of both Wars, much castigated and discriminated against when they returned home - forgotten and shunned for decades).

The more you watch, the more of these little touches you will pick up - and there will be the opportunity to do that, given that this is famously a warlike version of "Groundhog Day" in which Cruise's Major William Cage dies, only to reset and go back to the same (humorous light-relief) point, again and again. As Cage is only a man, and indeed at the start a deeply flawed one, we maybe should not read too much into his repeated suffering and resurrection in the interests of salvation. But who knows?

An issue with "Edge of Tomorrow" is that there is definitely more here than the (perfectly competent) sci-fi alien invasion story that meets the eye.

But how far exactly can we go with this? A good question.

While Cage is an Officer (US Army), he has no idea how "the PBI" go on and is absolutely not trained to fight, even as he has up to now been tasked with broadcasting the worthiness of that fight and doing what he can to promote it. A gift for his propaganda work comes with the legendary battlefield successes of Emily Blunt's "Angel of Verdun" character - Rita Vrataski - very sweetly and patriotically a BRITISH soldier.

It transpires that Rita became so battle-ready because she too went through the repeat-the-day-when-you-die phemonenon, which - it transpires - is imparted by the aliens, but can ultimately be lost if you fail to die and have to have a blood transfusion!

Yes, indeed, the film has to jump through some extreme plot hoops to make its point (the biggest of which is that the whole world is present within Cage's resets).

So what is the motivation for the movie - or indeed for the viewer of it to watch it?

Unbelieveable as it may initially seem, a huge motivation is for the tremendous evocation of sacrifice and love that "Edge of Tomorrow" represents. There is a Greek-mythological (as well as Biblical) accent here, as Cage's newfound "immortality" is devoted, not only to training up painstakingly (literally) to become the perfect warrior, but also to seeing brothers and sisters in arms, and above all Rita, die again and again and again in a host of ways, with him doing his level best to change the next version of history for the better, even if that is an extremely incremental process.

Good is being served here, through suffering and effort.

The movie does not labour the point, but Blunt's character (who is of course utterly gorgeous even as she is indeed somehow angelic) is obviously going to be loved by Cage (and many of us out here) no matter what happens! But to see her die repeatedly and then live again? Our imaginations, good as they may be - and helped on a lot by the film - cannot fully grasp the measure of the combined exqusite beauty and torture that that represents.

Indeed, how far could any movie - even a well-done one like this - really allow us to experience what this endless triumph of hope over expectation might be like?

Cage returns to Rita again and again, rebriefs her, and regularly ends up being shot by her in order to permit another restart. So just what kind of - perverted or sublime - comradeship, intimacy and love is that? (With the exception of literally one person), NOBODY knows what they share. And when he returns, and gives her a searching look of wonder, she asks "Do I have something on my face?" - exquisite underplaying of this immense romantic story.

Indeed, this is for me the second-best (remarkably delicate) evocation of hopelessly lost, head-over-heels, true, deep, shared-experience romantic love I have ever seen on screen (after Andrew Lincoln's portrayal in "Love Actually"). (The third-best comes from Bogart and Hepburn in "The African Queen"). This is only accentuated by a moment in the present film - already in north France - when Cage admits that he has seen Rita die hundreds of times and has never been able to get past this stage and place. He says this as he tenderly patches a wound on her lovely shoulder. Wow!

And double wow that only once does this portrayal hint at sexuality or anything more down-to-earth. The love we see here goes far beyond such lusty need and we are privileged to see it portrayed, even as it is (must be) beyond our ken.

Does that denote a pseudo-religious or semi-divine experience in a movie originating from a Japanese comic?

Just maybe.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

(Only) Part 2 of a stretched fairy tale, but a great deal to delight in, so why worry?

[9/10 · 30 May 2021]

While the passage of time seems to largely vindicate Peter Jackson's controversial (at times even cynically ridiculed) decision to turn Tolkien's rather slim 1937 volume of "The Hobbit" into a film trilogy about as long as the one he fashioned from the decidedly-more-bulky (and more profound and adult) "Lord of the Rings" novels from 1954-5, you are still likely to come to the end of "The Desolation of Smaug" and wonder what the makers can possibly include in a 2.5-hour Part 3.

But what does that fact actually denote?

That you sit back in the armchair and feel happy that our times have brought forth so fine an object. As tweaked somewhat beyond the original book content by Jackson and co, Part 2 here suffers no shortage of either action or magic or beauty or even wit. And, as in the Rings trilogy, the imagination and effort that have gone into presenting the worlds of dwarves, men and goblins-orcs are amazing. Knock yourself out by determining if the achievement is greater in respect of the elven world of Mirkwood, the awesome but also bombastically pathetic kingdom under the Lonely Mountain or the ramashackle late-Mediaevalism of a Laketown led by a Master that could not really be played by anyone else but Stephen Fry!

For me the last is in fact the most plausible and impressive(ly shabby) world, but the others are unvelievably magnificent masterpieces. Each is being encroached upon now by the malign goblins, who are quite plausible and scary enough, thank you very much (parents be aware); but here our tale is also enriched by Benedict Cumberbatch's splendid and actually rather personable/sympathetic dragon!

Fairy tale for kids indeed, but Jackson nicely deepens the effect, not least in his exposing of a diversity of flawed sides affecting both dwarves and elves (the minuses of the men featured go almost without saying). Against that background, the decency-based link between Bilbo the Hobbit and Gandalf the Wizard, which the book pushes, is made even clearer here, and mostly allows us to respect the dignified performances of both Martin Freeman and Sir Ian McKellen in these roles.

The appearance here by Andy Serkis as slimy and sad creature Gollum is as remarkable as you might expect, and the fact (known to those more obsessed with Tolkien's work) that he and hobbit Bilbo might actually be some kind of very distant cousins makes the encounter deep under the mountains even more meaningful.

Indeed, the largely-British cast is enjoyable and gifted overall, while the love affair between Tauriel the elf (Canadian actress Evangeline Lilly) and dwarf Kili (the now-familiar Irish actor Aidan Turner) - as dreamed up by Jackson - is subtle and beautiful, well-handled, helpful to the overall package of the films, and further stretched into a triangle by Orlando Bloom's Legolas - with his quite unique blend of delicacy and remarkable and dynamic toughness.

Enjoy indeed, for there is something good wherever you look here!

The Crown: Tywysog Cymru (2019) Season 3, Episode 6

Poetically beautiful and immaculately constructed

[10/10 · 28 May 2021]

Having been entirely absent from the show thus far, Prince Charles (as portrayed by Josh O'Connor) leaps into the limelight of "The Crown" in an episode that at least briefly relegates Philip, Elizabeth and Mountbatten to bit-part players. Viewers who have got through the 3 series to this point will by now be realising that this is not "the story of Elizabeth II" or "the story of the British monarchy", nor even "a recent history of the UK" (though it is not so far from that). But it is a series of vignettes in which one point or other is being pressed. This is impressive artistically, permits a measure of licence that audiences seeking "the truth" may not always appreciate, allows us to press on with the story, and ensures that - should they so wish - the makers can go off at a tangent to the extent that there is little or nothing you, I or anything else can do to stop them, except by reaching for the off switch.

It is in on this kind of basis that I watch this show on an episode-by-episode basis, waiting expectantly for some line I may not tolerate to be crossed. Indeed, this episode did play relatively fast and loose as, to push its agenda as regards Prince Charles (and notably to stress some imagined concordance between how England sees (saw) Wales and how Her Majesty saw her heir), the makers here abruptly ditch a loyalty to HMQ that has been near-unquestioning for a great many episodes. Suddenly, "Mummy" is the villain to Charles's hero (clearly a job for Colman more than Foy), even as Lord Mountbatten is rehabilitated (he was about to lead a coup just one episode back!) and Philip suddenly looks kind (though he was doing all kinds of questionable stuff last series).

It's not quite fair to change horses in mid race in this way, but one can forgive a lot for the beauty and poetry of this episode, whose title means "Prince of Wales".

The charm and magic of the show has again and again been that - writ large at least - these "stories" are often so good and incredible that "truth" is stranger than fiction, and you really could NOT make it up. Here (at the urging of PM Harold Wilson), we have a Republican, anti-monarchist Welsh nationalist teaching Charles Welsh at the University of Wales for a couple of months, and - yes - it did indeed happen! Shakespearean actor Mark Lewis Jones works absolute wonders with his role as Dr Tedi Millward, and his scenes with O'Connor are electric and moving. Here at least (and very possibly in life), the two learned from each other, and that is what God hopes for us all. And Charles is given here as someone who has experienced too much loneliness, resentment and outright hostility even as he is just a young and rather naive man (even boy in some sense - he is just 20 here). He hurts and he does not know how to make that hurt go away, yet in his way he is forbearing, long-suffering, patient, humble, studious, well-meaning and willing to work on his own errors and weak points. He is then, to my mind, exactly the Charles we still know today, even though that Charles has only enhanced this thanks to the need to do penitence each day over the loss of his wife.

Charles done by O'Conner is also child-man and man-child, but this is anyway a portrayal that does plenty of favours to His Royal Highness (even as we know the fickle makers of this series will soon be taking most of them away from him again).

But for those of us who respect Charles, or at the very least show him basic human and Christian sympathy and goodwill, the portrayal is just right.

All builds up to the speech in Welsh Charles is to deliver once Her Majesty has presented him to the Principality of Wales as its new Prince - in the famous Investiture ceremony. Unforgiveably - rottenly - the speech quoted here was never actually given by Charles. How could they? However, the real-life speech of July 1st 1969 did indeed express some markedly pro-Welsh sentiments and - while it could not really be faulted for that, could it? - it was indeed interpreted by some as giving succour to Welsh nationalists.

Still nothing in this life is perfect, and "The Crown" has regularly blotted its copybook through its "faction". But here, more than in perhaps any of its episodes, the claim that it is doing this for the sake of art looks fully justified.

The episode is a touching and meaningful masterpiece, and if things weren't QUITE like that, well they certainly ought to have been!!!

The Alaska Triangle: The Alaskan Titanic (2020) Season 1, Episode 6

No amount of importation of Hugh Newman will make this more "exotic or alien" than a sad shipping disaster

[5/10 · 28 May 2021]

The flaws of the often-wafer-thin "Alaska Triangle" series (made because Alaska was one place one might go during the pandemic) are magnified to the maximum in this episode, interesting as the topic actually is. As one of the talking heads on the programme wisely notes, this was the (1918) time of the War's end and Spanish Flu and people had things other than disasters at sea to think about. But this was a big one and a sad one and bizarre-ish in one sense at least - that the water was not terribly deep, the Inner Passage not the worst of all routes (and well known to both Captain Locke and his ill-fated ship the Princess Sophia), rescue ships did come (though could not - and were warned not to - approach) and officers and crew DID have many hours of time to think what they might do (unlike on the original Titanic for example). The main problem was the great length of time for which bad weather persisted. If you want to believe (as the makers here would encourage) that that is the "Alaska Triangle" region conspiring at all costs to win its prize in terms of loss of life and extract its revenge for the exploitation of Alaska's resources, well you are free to do so. If you think the ship went down not because of bad weather and bad luck, but because Bermuda-like malign influences are also present in Alaska, well good luck to you on that too! A tacked-on investigation for signs of the spirits of deceased victims in Juneau fails to convince or raise much of a thrill, personable enough as expert Jeff Richards may actually be.

The Professor and the Madman (2019)

Wonderfully-acted and spellbinding portrayal of a real-life story mostly presented FAITHFULLY

[10/10 · 24 February 2021]

History, like life, is complex and nuanced and regularly fed by doses of unlikely or even impossible circumstances or coincidences.

None of us were around in Victorian times, so each time we try to put ourselves in their shoes, we get only an approximation of it - even when, as with the storyline in "The Professor and the Madman", we have handsomely rich documentation from the time available, thanks: a) to the mixture of meticulousness, duty, devotion and energy that were the best features of that time, and b) to the fact that that era generated enough power and stability of institutions and systems in the United Kingdom that the country stood up very well thank you to the worst that the world could throw at it for 100 years and more. Unlike in, say, Poland, its heritage was not destroyed or ransacked by merciless invaders, and was nurtured and kept safe and intact.

The vision and mission on show is to celebrate the love of English, and the vision of Scotsman James Murray (1837-1915) (here played stunningly well by Mel Gibson) - the process of building that Oxford English Dictonary (eventually "finished" in 1928 at least in the first "round" of its work begun in 1857, and featuring Murray from the 1870s on) was to be a democractic one operating bottom-up, from the people, more than top-down (from the elite).

Along with Russell Crowe, Mel Gibson is made for roles of determined, driven, near-obsessively passionate individuals, and this portrayal is GREAT. Of course, that means a long-suffering wife (very sensitively done by Jeniffer Ehle), and children who would have looked a bit neglected, had they not (really) been roped into the immense and near-endless work to compile the Dictionary!

Happily, the re-creation of the contact and contrast between the self-taught Scotsman and the dons of Oxford trying to get the dictionary done at last is indeed a matter of nuance. It is not overall the cliche clash with the snobs (even if some of that is present), as Murray the schoolmaster but also basically bank clerk is genius enough to have won advocates among the academics, not least Frederick Furnivall (1825-1910) (here played - again very nicely - by Steve Coogan, no less!). Take 5 minutes to scan the bio of Furnivall - it's a CLASSICALLY Victorian one - warts and all, which shows those people at their baffingly magnificent and diverse best. Though we don't see too much of it here, Furnivall was as major a contributor of OED definitions and examples from history as was the legendary Dr William Chester Minor (1834-1920) - the stunningly interesting, conflicted, tortured and sad character that Sean Penn conveys so amazingly here.

Yes, indeed, as American/Brit Bill Bryson noted a long time ago in his as usual witty but highly competent summary of the situation (in the book "Mother Tongue"), a significant chunk of the OED WAS compiled by a sufferer of persecution mania from the United States incarcerated on British soil at the famous Broadmoor high-security psychiatric hospital. That had only opened in 1863 - less than a decade before the events in the film, and - in one of the few liberties the film takes - Superintendent Richard Brayn (a great piece of work here by Stephen Dillane) was NOT actually there until 1896. However, both he and his real-life predecessors did indeed believe that their mission was to try and cure, and not merely lock up ... or punish.

Now the film would be magnificent without the William Minor plotline, but that would not be the true story, and - while the threads featuring Minor look increasingly strained or implausible as the film progresses - they are indeed LARGELY TRUE! Yes, Minor DID castrate himself while locked up! Yes, the widow of the man he shot in a moment of mania (here played - again well - by Natalie Dormer) DID visit and befriend him in the end (love - who knows? but not inconceivable that there was). Yes. the man who eventually allowed for Minor to return to the USA in 1910 (for 10 more years of life there) was indeed ... Winston Churchill (as Home Secretary).

Now it has to be said that - not for the first time - I found myself slightly disappointed by the later developments in the film (the first half is SPELLBINDING AND INTENSELY MOVING) - primarily because I believed the flm-makers played a little too much with their subject matter.

BUT THIS IS NOT REALLY SO.

The topic is such an amazing, broad, emotional and intellectually-meaningful one that of course it deserved a film. And indeed it deserved THIS film with THESE actors in it. The fact that the work descended into controversy in real life - and was even disowned by many of those involved - is of passing interest to me. They created something beautiful and warm and amazing anyway, and I love them for it. I do also appreciate their sticking rather (surprisingly) closely to the facts.

For those who know the story (I did) will be captivated by the re-creation of it; while those who do not know it will - if there is any justice and reason left in this world - have their eyes opened by it in every possible way.

Color Out of Space (2019)

Ought to be a creepy classic, but in these hands it ends up annoying and ridiculous-looking

[5/10 · 19 February 2021]

Given the authentic and honourable sci-fi horror credentials of HP Lovecraft's "Color out of Space", we ought to have no issue with an alien lifeform that arrives on a meteorite and co-opts local fauna and flora for its purposes ... up to and including the loving if slightly dysfunctional Gardner family. One could even live with the idea that the phenomenon somehow "creeps over" that family (in every sense of the word) - by stealth and incrementally, so that at no point do they EVER behave AT ALL like any sensible or normal people would do when faced with this situation. But, hey, this is a family at whose head are people acted by "specialists in the woolly" Nicholas Cage and Joely Richardson, so we never get enough conviction or likeability or authenticity from these characters to allow us to forgive their oversights or indeed extend much sympathy. Likewise, the setting they live in this Richard Stanley movie is such that no authenticity or true grit comes out of that either.

Basically, a world that is already wishy-washy becomes far more so because of a purple alien presence, but who really gives a damn?

Answer on that would be - almost nobody even in the film scenario itself, as - despite the Mayor and the Police and the company seeking (thankfully) to drown the whole area under a dam-reservoir being aware of at least the problem's first phase - nobody does anything concrete at all. The armed forces and secret services and Homeland Security setup in the US employs many millions of people, but all have absented themselves from this movie - down to the last man or woman.

So why should we waste our time either?

The Others (2001)

Genuinely creepy and disorientating, but understandably bereft of almost any joy

[8/10 · 8 February 2021]

Those who know this genre of story will have an inkling of the (still-ingenious) twist that is coming from a relatively early stage; and overall they might ask themselves if this one is really worth the ride - not because Alejandro Amenabar made a bad film (he certainly did not), but because there is so little real enlightenment (in every sense of the word) to be had here amidst all the gloom.

We are certainly in need of a hint of comedic delivery from veteran Eric Sykes as one of the 3 servants who turn up at a large mansion in post-War Jersey to help Grace (Nicole Kidman) run the place. And his companion Mrs Mills the housekeeper allows Fionnula Flanagan to let in a tiny bit of warmth and genuine fellow-feeling. But much of the time this is just a confused lady of the house sinking steadily along with her ever-more traumatised (and xeroderma pigmentosum-suffering) children, with all becoming greyer and more misty with each passing moment. And we are as disorientated as they are, and it's quite unsettling.

If you like a film that makes its impression in this way, well enjoy!

They (2002)

Any possible reason for going back 18 years to this?

[7/10 · 5 February 2021]

One of many issues with Robert Harmon's "They" is that it never stops being creepy - not for more than a second or two, so ultimately that's bound to be wearing. Laura Regan as the star is effortlessly hot, but at some point we probably do switch from thinking passively that that has long been the fate of beauties in horror movies ... and isn't she gorgeous? to feeling some actual something for a character that loses it steadily as the movie progresses. That is an achievement of sorts.

However, since Dagmara Dominczyk who also appears is similarly devastatingly good-looking, we do come close to exploitation here, and all the more so as other (male) characters in the movie mainly prove highly ineffectual (and of course disbelieving) so we don't have much (else) to gain from a lot of what happens on screen for 90 minutes or so. Furthermore, a key feature here is that "there is no escape" - that always has its plus- and minus-points in any movie context. Hints at directed plot, forging of alliances and all that kind of content associated with a film all come to naught in the ascendant chaos.

That said, the fairly atmospheric "They" is a movie that deploys (as usual effectively) that old spooky dodge of "it rains nearly all the time" (seen for excample in "Se7en" (made 7 years before this one) and that denotes a world that is not quite ours. Thus it would be fair to say that what happens on the absolute margins of this tale is actually much more interesting than what unfolds on centre stage. By willing yourself as far as possible, you might just transport for a moment into the dystopia that is this dingy, grey, troubled and clearly semi-moribund alternative world, and there's an appreciative shudder waiting for you if you manage that. Drop the horror tag and watch this as sci fi, and you'll soon cotton on to this being an alien invasion flick, and on that basis it is creepy, and just about convincing enough to hold its own.

So I watched again today after a gap of umpteen years (still stuck in pandemic world) and I don't actually complain too much ... this movie is sufficient as entertainment in an hour and a half of downtime.

The Undoing (2020)

At times disturbing and not bad overall ... especially for those liking convoluted ways of getting from A to B

[8/10 · 26 January 2021]

I've posted my usual spoiler alert, but even then you should be sure you want to before you read this...

For the bald fact is that devotees of "The Undoing" will spend an atmospheric and Central Park-filled 5 hours+ with this series, being taken (by the makers and a lawyer well played by Noma Dumezweni) - logically or by extreme forcing - through every possible candidate for a savagely brutal murder alternative to Hugh Grant's Jonathan Fraser ... only to find that, true to form, the one person with a British accent in an American film is indeed (as usual) the real villain.

Cliche or what?

But one bonus of that corniness is seeing Hugh Grant being Hugh Grant in this role of the cancer-treating Dr Jonathan Fraser - in fact almost the same role as in all Grant's other movies (well that's his style, what he is paid for, and why we watch). BUT... when he's fleeing in a car with his son (played by Noah Jupe) - a character who the father has even considered capable of the murder that is the centrepiece here - and he's still cracking jokes as well as getting rabidly angry in the middle of all his narcissism that's pretty scary. Not much less so is the willingness of his psychiatrist wife (Nicole Kidman) to accept that she has been guilty of what she tells her patients not to do ... of glossing over the warts-and-all truths of someone close to her.

So the chilling portrayals with all of that psychological layering are what count here, given the as-it-turns-out predictable plotline. Given that another one of those portrayals is a hard-as-nails one from veteran Donald Sutherland, that'll probably be good enough reason for most.

The Collection (2016)

Allow this to "flow over you" and you may like the effect

[8/10 · 11 January 2021]

Oliver Goldstick's "The Collection" is about a Paris fashion house resurfacing in the immediate aftermath of World War II. That gives it enough of two key dimensions to make a bid for a broader audience, and though middle-aged and male I count myself as one who came under its spell quite effectively ... as the episodes passed.

With chunks actually filmed in France; with an international ensemble of acting talent (not much actually French but plenty from different corners of Europe - including of all people that amazing big-screen protege of Kieslowski Irene Jacob!); and with some tremendous clothing on show against a mixed elegant- and-shabby background, "The Collection" makes a very good attempt at authenticity. The fact that American characters are also present here is a major further bonus, which allows at least some to stand back and rise above the inevitable French-on-French intrigues.

Enjoy the backstabbing - figurative and even literal (!), family splits and within- and between-firm conflicts; be both captivated and a little disgusted by the haute couture; and savour a post-War atmosphere in which a country getting back on its feet is only just beginning to paper over some pretty big cracks, and you might at some point begin to feel you are actually a fly on the wall enjoying a story unfold in very atmospheric circumstances.

While "The Collection" is not quite the exquisite and magnificent period French delight that is the Rowan Atkinson "Maigret", there is a touch of that here nonetheless, and of course quite a few aspects that the Maigret context did not reach. Most of us (Brits and Americans) find France a bit fascinating even as it is distinct, and it would be hard to leave 8 episodes of this show without coming to see - and even feel - why that might be so.