Reviews

First things first - ignore the 1/10 scores. Scores that low means there's nothing redeemable about the film, and that's simply not the case. The animation is lush, the voice acting good and there are some laughs to be had along the way.

Plot wise, it's not transformative - this is not Inside Out or Wall-E. It's a simple tale about two friends who happen to be sea monsters navigating their way through the human world, bonding along the way. It's a little generic, but it's fun, entertaining and you'd have to be a real dullard to not appreciate that this film is brimming with enthusiasm. There's plenty of great Italian folk music mixed in with a beautiful orchestral score, all of which for, the perfect backdrop to a picture-perfect Italian seaside town that's overflowing with colour.

I think there's a tendency to dismiss simple films, which I think is unfair. Not every film needs to be a cerebral exercise or be era-defining. Just live and let live - that's a good message to take away from the film.

Overall, I'd put it in the same bracket as Raya and the Last Dragon - solid and entertaining films that, while perhaps not doing much new, are still worth watching.

Southeast Asia and dragons is a pretty good hook for a film as far as I'm concerned, and Raya mostly delivers. Visually, the film is beautiful, even if the character models do look a little plastic against the lush environmental details. There are some striking 2D sequences that I really enjoyed, in a similar vein to Kung Fu Panda.

The music is...good? I think? It's a bit odd. I ordinarily love James Newton Howard's scores, but this one goes all over the place. The use of traditional Southeast Asian instruments like the gamelan is there, but often buried deep in the score. Instead, there's liberal use of synth and an overall very digital sound, plus electric guitar in places. It's just quite strange and doesn't quite mesh together as a whole, even though there are some lovely pieces of orchestration.

The story and writing is a cookie-cutter, revolving around the theme of trust and healing of deeply engrained divisions. It's certainly topical and relevant to the time. It's not subtle. There's a persistent problem in a lot of children's/family films that writers can't let their themes express themselves through their visuals and plot; instead, it needs spelling out. Children can infer these things without needing the sledgehammer. A cookie-clutter plot doesn't mean that it's bad, just it doesn't really add anything new or provide anything especially compelling.

For me, the performances, while very good by any reasonable measurement, just weren't to my taste. Awkwafina as Sisu, especially, has an energetic goofiness in her performance that clashed with the idea that she's a wise dragon. It feels extremely American, rather than being rooted in Southeast Asian culture.

Ultimately, I enjoyed Raya. I have no particular desire to watch it again any time soon and I am glad I waited for it to come onto general access to Disney+ rather than paying extra. It's been a little while since Disney Pixar released a really top tier film - the last one in my view was Coco (Soul was good, just a shame that the first Black-led Pixar film consigned the main character to being a cat for most of it; Onward was average, The Incredibles 2 disappointing, Toy Story 4 better than expected but still average). Disney seem to be concentrating on live-action remakes/prequels/sequels that I have no interest in. I think Raya could have benefited from being a traditional Disney musical rather than a Pixar-style film.

Still, enjoyable.

Netflix needed a bit of fresh air. It's facing increased competition from other streaming services and it's original programming has been very hit and miss. It needed a new flagship show. The Witcher may just be it.

I've watched one episode so far. I'll do another review when I've finished the series, but I'm savouring it rather than binge-watching.

I've only played The Witcher 2 and 3. I know those games inside out. I know basically nothing about the books (though I know I should read them) asides from the lore contained in the games and bits and bobs picked up on the wiki.

After pausing the episode halfway through to google why Geralt only has one sword, I tried to just switch off my knowledge of the games and enjoy the show, and enjoy it I did.

The action is slick and brilliantly choreographed (even featuring some Signs, for game players). There's little nauseating quick-cutting. The music is reminiscent of the games, featuring a beautiful blend of Slavic instrumentation and melody with traditional western orchestral style. The script is a little heavy on the exposition, though the heavy lifting is done early on in the episode leaving the rest of it to get down to the brewing political intrigue and action. There's some pretty spectacular CGI, especially in the opening scene. Production values are overall very high quality.

The performances are mostly solid. Henry Cavill has a tough role to play because Geralt isn't the most charismatic of protagonists, but he brings more depth to the role than the mumblegrowl of the games. Freya Allan immediately convinced me in the role of Ciri. She's got little mannerisms here and there. She's sarcastic and rebellious, but also genuine. Other performances are nothing to write home about, but they're sufficient.

For players of the games, this helps fill in so much of Geralt's backstory that we've only heard passing reference to in the games (including a particularly important one). For book readers, I'm sure this is a more faithful adaptation of the books than the games are.

For newcomers, honestly, I'm not sure if I can recommend it at this stage. We'll have to see. It jumps deep into the mythos of The Witcher series with little easing into it. Unlike Game of Thrones (which The Witcher will inevitably be compared to) there's not much in the way of build up. Episode one launches you right into the middle of a major conflict, before you've gotten to know any of the main characters.

It's good - much better than expected - and I'm looking forward to watching the rest of the series over Christmas.

I'll be honest, I was dead against Toy Story 4. I grew up with Toy Story. When the first one came out, I was a young child, and I was in my first year of university when the third was released, just as Andy was heading off to college himself. These films are special to me, and they're part of a very special club where both the original and its sequels are damn-near perfect.

I refused to see the film on principle when it was released. I want to see more films like Inside Out and Coco, not sequels that don't even come close to the quality of the original (looking at you, Finding Dory, Ralph Breaks the Internet and The Incredibles 2 - all firmly okay films). While Disney are also busy with sequels and live action remakes of their existing, there's a definite sense of dread that standalone originals are going to become a rarity in lieu of easy money.

Toy Story 4 is certainly easy money. Fortunately, it's actually quite good.

The first thing to mention are the visuals. They are outstanding, at times bordering on photorealistic, yet retaining the Toy Story style. They're classy too. At one point, the toys walk behind a dusty display case in an antiques shop and it's shot to look like a proper 1940s film noir. There's an extraordinary attention to detail, just as you'd expect from Pixar - a lot of love has gone into the film.

Story-wise, the plot does that classic Pixar thing where it constantly balances comedy and emotional heft. Just a few minutes into the film, Bonnie (you'll remember her from Toy Story 3) starts her first day at school. What starts as something heartbreaking turns into pure joy, and later hilarity, as her creation - a spork called Forkie with pipe cleaner arms and lolly sticks for legs - gains sentience.

Forkie is unsure about his role in life. What's his purpose? It's introspective in that way Pixar films often are - nothing like a bit of existentialism in your children's animations. This theme is explored on a road trip that, in true Toy Story style, turns into a rescue mission.

The new characters excellent, with Keanu Reeves in particular stealing his scenes as a Canadian stunt rider. The reappearance of Bo Peep is welcome, and Annie Potts' voice acting is great. With so many characters, it's impressive that the screenwriters have been able to balance each of their character arcs and give them meaningful personality with only a limited amount of screen time to go around.

I'm docking a couple of stars due to its slightly muddled message and a wonderfully creepy antagonist that...it'd be a spoiler to say anything more, but it's a bit strange what they do there.

All in all, it's frequently laugh out loud funny, emotionally powerful and thoroughly enjoyable. It's not as good as Toy Story 3, but it's still head and shoulders above what most studios are pumping out.

Netflix science fiction is, shall we say, a mixed bag, and most of that bag is fairly rubbish. I went into I Am Mother was very low expectations and was very pleasantly surprised.

I Am Mother is the story of a girl, Daughter, raised isolated in a sealed compound by a robot - Mother - following some kind of apocalypse. She is almost entirely ignorant of what's outside - everything she knows comes from Mother. Gradually, things become to unravel and Daughter slowly learns the truth.

In many respects, I Am Mother adds very little to the genre. You've seen a thousand post-apocalyptic films and titles that explore Isaac Asimov's Three (or Four?) Laws of Robots before. I Am Mother plays with the same themes and ideas; however, it's so much better than most of them.

Production values are consistently high and really any complaints I've got here are nitpicks rather than legitimate concerns. Acting, likewise, is fantastic, with a special shoutout going to Luke Hawker as the body of Mother with smooth, but distinctly robotic movements beautifully making the character believable and lifelike (Mother's voice is Rose Byrne, who's also great).

The screenplay is perhaps a little slow-paced, revealing a few of its key twists quite early and then giving you little else to chew on for the rest of the film, but it's ultimately intelligent and compelling.

While you've seen similar films before, I Am Mother is so much more human than others. It's central theme of motherhood adds extra emotional weight and significance to characters' actions rather than the loose motivations we often see.

All in all, well worth a watch. I daresay this will be one I rewatch too.

This is the only film from Uganda I've watched, though I own Who Killed Captain Alex? as a double feature film with Bad Black, which I've yet to watch. The presence of the infamous 'Video Joker' by itself makes this is a must-watch. It's so bizarre, and hilarious, which is exactly the point. It is so weird it's not even worth giving an example because it has to be seen to be believed, but the enthusiasm of the video joker narrating the film compensates for every technical deficiency it has.

Ahh yes, the technical deficiencies. The film was made for about $200 by a guy who'd never been to a cinema before who sold practically everything he owned to buy a camera, edited on an ancient computer in a slum replete with violent police demonstrations and constant power cuts.

Given that, this film is a technical masterpiece. It ain't no Mad Max: Fury Road, but the action is surprisingly solid with none of that irritating shaky-cam fast editing you see in many modern action films. The fights are, well, not exactly choreographed, but the actors are putting their all into it, with some impressive stunts.

I have a simple rule for judging films: did it entertain me?

Yes, it did, and not just in the 'so bad that it's good' way. Unlike many films, Who Killed Captain Alex is entirely conscious that it's silly. It doesn't take itself seriously. It wasn't made for me or really 99.99% of the world. It was made by a guy who genuinely loves films for his mates in his village - they sold the first copies of the film door-to-door. It set out to achieve everything it wanted to achieve, and more. It's impossible to be cynical about this film, because it's so honest and genuine.

You should buy this film (or some of its merchandise) rather than pirate it or stream it for free. Firstly, because it costs hardly anything ($10, and they'll sign it for you - no middlemen involved as it ships straight from Uganda) and secondly, because this is a proper grassroots industry in a Ugandan slum that deserves your support. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not one for charity - giving money to some organisation promising miracle solutions to problems in a distant nation doesn't sit with me. This isn't charity though. This is different - you're supporting employment in a poor nation. It allows the team behind this film to buy better gear, hire new actors/editors/musicians/cinematographers/etc. and support a whole network of associated jobs. By buying this film, you are contributing to development in a way that's so much more effective than just giving some cash to some random charity.

All in all, this film will have you laughing and I guarantee you'll enjoy it. It's mad, it's weird, it's, well, cheaply made, but my goodness is it passionate and made for the pure love of film.

Netflix original science fiction is wildly variable in quality, and unfortunately much of it is fluff (albeit enjoyable fluff). See You Yesterday is not a fluffy film: this is a serious drama about police brutality and racism in New York with a science fiction/time travel skin.

The best sci fi has always been used to comment on real-life social issues - i.e. it's allegory, and so the premise of See You Yesterday had me sold. Add to that the fact BAME actors, particularly women, are under-represented in science fiction and fantasy, and I there's a recipe for a great film. Will Smith has had a healthy number of sf/f roles, as have Laurence Fishburne and Samuel L Jackson...and...? I guess Lupita Nyongo played a funky alien for a few minutes in Star Wars and Octavia Spencer got to be a cleaner in The Shape of Water.

The problems with See You Yesterday start almost immediately. Two teenagers wearing goofy clothing don cheap-looking backpacks and exposit to a security camera (the audience) their plan to travel back in time using the devices strapped to their backs. The dialogue is reasonably snappy though, and reasonably funny.

Ahh, so this isn't a serious character-driven drama? It's a campy time-travel comedy. That's fine. I'm up for that: Hot Tub Time-Machine didn't quite scratch the itch left by the Back to the Future series (and it even features a cameo from Michael J Fox).

A few minutes later and one of the secondary characters is dead, shot by a white policeman for no good reason, and that kick-starts the film. Umm...that's not funny.

It's weird. You've got Disney Channel-style costuming and acting combined with a heavy dose of profanity and violence, and it doesn't work. Is it supposed to be gritty? Because, despite the subject matter, it doesn't feel gritty, but nor is it especially funny after the opening scenes, and the science fiction elements are thin on the ground.

The direction is serviceable, if uninteresting, but occasionally some truly bizarre camera work materialises. At one point, the camera just randomly moves around an alleyway, for no good reason. It's like you're playing around with Google Street View. At another, it does a loop-the-loop. Maybe it's symbolic of something, but what I don't know.

The acting is alright. The music is a bit rubbish: it's cheap-sounding and uninspired. They'd given it a cinematic orchestral score, which just doesn't work for the film, and they'd have been better of sticking with hip-hop, RnB and rap tracks, which better fit the setting.

The special effects...oh boy. I'm sympathetic to the fact this is a low-budget film, but even accommodating that, they're terrible: Fritz Lang's 1927 Metropolis has better ones.

All in all, it's not a great film, but I'm glad it exists. A meandering plot, mostly poor production values and mediocre everything else doesn't make for a particularly riveting watch, but I appreciate the fact an effort has been made to discuss issues like police brutality in science fiction, as well as featuring an almost entirely black cast. In that respect, it's refreshing to see something different.

I respect his talent. The Office and Extras were refreshing pieces of comedy - quick-witted, well-acted and original. I enjoyed them, yet while watching I couldn't escape the idea that they were vehicles for Gervais's unique brand of, call what you like, arrogance.

He's a skilled writer and a decent actor, for the most part, yet increasingly I get the impression Gervais is only capable of portraying himself in every show he's in, because now we have After Life.

A comedy based around death featuring a suicidal protagonist? Bold choice, but depression, grief, mental illness generally? These are seldom topics discussed in mainstream media, least of all comedy, and I think it's good to see them tackled.

The problem is that Gervais has no interest in discussing these subjects; rather, he's interested in making a polemic to espouse his own feelings. There's no nuance or subtlety here. A show called After Life featuring a grieving widower is, naturally, going to discuss faith. Gervais himself is an atheist, fine, and he's vocal about it - rather like a vegan who'll announce it on first meeting. When the subject of religious belief comes up midway through the series, there's no conversation or exploration of it. Instead, Gervais has a Christian co-worker who also believes in healing crystals, for some reason, engage in a mind-numbing debate. Articulate Gervais debating with an utter moron does not make for riveting TV, and the only conclusion you're supposed to draw from it is that everyone with some kind of religious belief is an idiot and incapable of reasoned debate.

Gervais's character is depressed, which is understandable, and suicidal. He tells anyone and everyone about this and goes out of his way to drag them down. He practically boasts about it. He makes everyone else's life a misery. As someone who has struggled with depression and suicidal thoughts before, I don't think this reflects reality especially well. It's like on Facebook where you know people who'll update their status with woe-is-me tales then, when someone asks what's up, replies with, 'I don't want to talk about it'. Attention-seeking, in other words.

The more worrying thing is when someone stops posting on Facebook entirely and retreats into themselves, or instead put on a positive veneer when they go about their day-to-day business so you think all is good with them. People with mental illness often become very good actors.

But Gervais doesn't do nuance or subtlety - it's easier just to have a character preach about it to complete strangers. It's immensely frustrating to watch.

Bottom line is that Gervais is interested in getting across his world view and that's the only thing that matters. You're not allowed to disagree with him or he'll launch into an ad hominem attack. He's entirely closed-minded, and so the path that his character goes on to achieve a sense of closure isn't just a path, but the path - the one and only.

Production standards are nothing special, but fine. Acting is all-round great and the script is genuinely funny in places. There's no denying that Gervais is good at this, but complex it is not.

I first came across P.T. Barnum while doing some research for a project I was working on about Wunderkammer, or cabinets of curiosities. Barnum was many things - certainly complex - but he was not a nice man, and an egotist to the extreme.

Being at least vaguely familiar with Barnum tempered my initial viewing of the film, though it's hard not to like the songs and set pieces. Barnum here is a sympathetic, though flawed figure, and we're supposed to believe he was a benevolent employer and all-round good guy.

The Greatest Showman is best described as a historical fantasy. (Most of) the characters were real and some of the events depicted were real, but that's more or less it. It's best to approach it as fantasy rather than a historical, rather like 300. The artistic license has been taken to new extremes - it's a rather politically correct history.

This irritated me on my initial viewing. The film ignores - completely - some of Barnum's more shady enterprises, including slavery. While it makes some attempt to look at other issues, including an interracial relationship and the promotion of 'freaks' for money-making purposes, it's puddle deep. Character development is thin on the ground (at one point, Hugh Jackman's Barnum makes it clear his 'freaks' are unwelcome to a swanky reception, which prompts Keala Settle's Lettie Lutz to sing 'This is Me' - the film's signature anti-bullying song - but all seems to be forgiven immediately)

There's definitely a place in the film market for a biopic of Barnum's life and works, because that would be fantastic. This is not it. Nevertheless, I watched it again recently and just let myself relax and enjoy it. Do this, and it's an extremely enjoyable film. It's beautifully filmed. You could pause it at any point and print out the still and you'd be happy to have it framed on your wall. Performances are all-round spectacular. If you're like me and you're more used to seeing Jackman murdering people with adamantium claws then you'll be seriously impressed by this man's extraordinary talent. He can sing. Really, really well.

Songs like A Million Dreams, This is Me and The Greatest Show will bring a smile to your face - you'll have to really fight it from forming if you're determined to be a cynic.

It's a little corny and in places overly sentimental. I wish they'd added just a little more depth to it and given some of Barnum's performers proper subplots, as opposed to Zac Effron's mostly forgettable Philip Carlyle.

All in all, it's just fun, and that's absolutely fine. You're allowed to have fun and just enjoy a show. After all, this is what Barnum did: he was a showman. It didn't matter if that show was based upon fakery, lies and exploitation - he entertained people who wanted to be entertained, and that was all he pretended to do. That, probably, is the essence of this film, and honestly I don't care.

So if you're like me and tend to be a bit pedantic and naturally critical, treat yourself to a bottle of wine, let your brain stew a little in the alcohol and let yourself be entertained.

I would love to see a transcript of the pitch meeting for The Artist. A silent film, you say? Why? We have digital cameras and CGI and 3D and this and that nowadays. Why would you want to downgrade the technology?

The thing is, people were entertained by silent films in the 1920s. Children today are still entertained by films from the early era of colour like The Wizard of Oz and Snow White. Star Wars is forty years old and still entertaining. It's A Wonderful Life remains a Christmas staple.

Good stories are good stories irrespective of the technology used. Good film-making will always be god film-making. We rightly praise the special effects-heavy blockbusters like Star Wars for being visual spectacles, but silent films like Metropolis have effects and visuals that hold up today: George Lucas was not alone in borrowing plenty of imagery from Fritz Lang's masterpiece.

So now The Artist. A modern silent film. It's unashamedly a homage to film history. While it shuns dialogue, it has been updated for modern tastes with panning camera shots and tracking shots (things rare in true classic silent films), relatively short scenes and plenty of title cards. It's edited largely like a modern film to keep the pacing and conventions that we are used to.

The plot is simple: a egotistical silent film star falls on hard times as the talkies become popular while a young actress rises in fame. If that sounds like Singing in the Rain then you're right: it is. There's nothing to 'get' about The Artist. It's a simple, undemanding plot. It's not pretentious.

There's nothing really not to like here. The acting is superb, featuring the talents of John Goodman, Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo, among others. The casting is perfect: you can fully believe that these are people fresh from the 1920s. The film is beautifully directed and nicely paced. The soundtrack is wonderful: a nice combination of a original score by Ludovic Bource and period pieces. The set design demonstrates a real attention to detail (and while a few anachronisms a present, unless you're an expert or overly pedantic you won't notice).

Silent films are pure pieces of film-making. 'Film' ultimately consists of a string of still photographs produced by the interaction between light and chemicals contained on, y'know, camera film. This is what it is: moving images - movies. The audio came later. Being able to appreciate silent cinema is being able to appreciate the most pure form of film.

It's widely noted that nowadays people's concentration spans are shorter. Classic silent films are often extremely long with long drawn-out shots where relatively little happens, something modern films would edit out or replace with a throwaway line in a few seconds. The Artist does dispense with a lot of this to cater to modern tastes, but even so, a lot of modern viewers will be urging the film to get a move on.

To those people I say: calm down and take the opportunity to fully watch the film. Look at the actors' gestures and expressions, note what's going on in the background and just enjoy the music accompanying the visuals. You can't do this in most modern films - they just move too quickly. People enjoyed these films a hundred years ago and there's no reason we can't enjoy them now.

Hugo is an odd film. It's a children's film directed by the same talent that brought us the very non-child friendly The Wolf of Wall Street, Gangs of New York and Goodfellas (among others).

It's a film that, on the surface, appears to be a fantasy adventure, but in reality is a mystery drama. A lot of people were sorely disappointed by this, but this isn't the film's fault. We can blame the marketing department here, because the trailers and PR more generally made it look like a very different film.

This is a children's film about the history of cinema, not exactly the most child-friendly of topics, but my goodness is Hugo beautifully made. It's hard to articulate the appeal, because so many children and family films feel the need to stuff themselves full of fart jokes and action - you'll find none of this in Hugo.

Instead, you'll see a lovingly recreated Paris train station with a steampunk aesthetic (but not overdone). The attention to detail is extraordinary. It's packed filled with references to classic cinema that adults will appreciate, and captivating performances. Asa Butterfield and Chloe Moretz are fantastic leads here and are supported by a capable host of well-known actors, including the eminent Ben Kingsley.

At its heart, Hugo is simply a heart-warming story with a beautiful script and sophisticated direction. You do not need to be a film buff to enjoy it, but I would hope filmgoers (adults and children) leave with an appreciation of the silent era and cinematic heritage - it's unique charm and magic.

It's a niche-interest film to be sure, and if you or your children need fart jokes and explosions to enjoy a film then you'll be dissatisfied, but I saw Hugo with my niece and nephew and they were enchanted throughout. So much so, that we ended up watching A Trip to the Moon when we got home.

I've knocked a start off because I felt Sasha Baron-Cohen's character was in poor taste. He's largely relegated to comic relief, and while he does get his own character arc, there was something a little off about making humour out of a disabled war veteran's struggles (and what is implied to be PTSD).

Perhaps Hugo was just too unusual and unexpected to do well at the box office. Perhaps the subject matter was too adult and mature for a film aimed at children. I disagree. There's something in Hugo for everyone.

Let's get this straight: this is not a bad film.

It's not a perfect film, and as someone who has read and likes the books there are things that really annoyed me (one thing especially - I'll get to that).

The idea of cities mounted on wheels driving around and eating other cities is inherently silly. However, this isn't something author Philip Reeve included because he thought it would be cool; rather, it's a thinly veiled attack on the unsustainable nature of excessive consumerism. This isn't a point they 'drive' home in the film, but it's there. The whole point of the so-called Traction Cities is that they are unsustainable and that the philosophy of Municipal Darwinism is flawed. That's the basic conflict: those that recognise this (the Anti-Traction League and the people hiding behind the Shield Wall at Shan Guo) and those that don't (people on the Traction Cities).

Thaddeus Valentine, our antagonist brilliantly played by Hugo Weaving (of Elrond and Agent Smith fame), refuses to acknowledge any other way of life. Prey for the city of London is running low, so what are the options? You could stop driving around and start farming or you can build a giant weapon in St Paul's Cathedral to open up brand-new hunting grounds.

The parallels in contemporary society and culture are obvious. The refusal, for instance, to recognise that climate change is real and that there's need to wean ourselves off hydrocarbons in favour of renewables being one of them. Here in the UK, projects such as the tidal barrage in Wales get refused permission, while 'new weapons' like fracking technology get approval in Lancashire. It's a lot deeper than it appears on the surface.

Jackson makes this implicit rather than explicit, and that's a good decision, because reams of dialogue discussing the flawed philosophy would be dull, but it's there and there's lots to talk about when you think about the implications. Dismissing it as being silly is, I think, unfair, because it's no sillier than any number of other premises in film.

It's also a good decision because the script, frankly, isn't spectacular. There's a fair amount of clunky, cringey dialogue (not Attack of the Clones bad, but not great either), not to mention plot threads that get forgotten (what happened to Bevis?). What is spectacular are the visuals. Christian Rivers' background as a VFX artist is obvious. The team at Weta Workshop have gone all-out here. They are flawless. The level of detail is extraordinary, and the opening sequence blew me away. See it on the biggest screen you can find (I saw it on a smallish screen, and I wish I'd gone bigger!). I'm not going to dwell on this too long, but this film is filled to the brim with creativity: costuming, set design, CGI, etc. It's all great.

What's not so great, and this will continue to bug me, is Hester's appearance. She is quite possibly unique in young adult fiction in being a capable heroine who doesn't look like a model. She's hideous in the books - brutally disfigured - and so Tom and Hester's slow-burn relationship is all the more touching and real. Tom spends much of the books fixated upon her appearance before gradually seeing beyond the skin. This is a good message to send to teenage boys and girls - see the person.

Instead, film Hester is hot. Hilda Hilmar is an attractive actress. As a heterosexual male this isn't ordinarily something I'd complain about, but she's been given a single scar across her face that doesn't really detract from her looks. Tom finding her attractive isn't unsurprising or subversive. Hollywood just can't resist.

My other gripe with the film is Junkie XL's score. It's more or less indistinguishable from Mad Max: Fury Road. He's not a subtle composer, and that was fine for a film of non-stop action like Mad Max where bombast is great, but Mortal Engines deserved a bit more subtlety. It needed the John Williams or Howard Shore treatment. There are no themes here - just lots of string ostinatos and brass swells.

Overall, Mortal Engines is thoroughly enjoyable. The plot is simple, but so what? Lots of films have simple plots but that doesn't make them unenjoyable. The acting is solid all round. There are few big-name actors here, though a number you'll likely recognise from elsewhere. It's nicely paced, and the action is good (though way too many jump cuts in the fight scenes for my liking - John Wick, Game of Thrones among other things have proven you can have incredible fight sequences without them, without making viewers ill).

I want to finish this review by bringing it back to my title. Mortal Engines is a box office flop and has been unfairly panned in my view. It is not a perfect film and the steampunk aesthetic doesn't appeal to everyone (I love it). It's similar to Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets in this respect. Valerian had plenty of flaws - big ones in places - but it was such a refreshing change from the barrage of Marvel. What phase are we on in Marvel now? How many Transformers films have there been (plus spin-offs like Bumblebee)? Fast and Furious?

These are all objectively worse films than Mortal Engines, yet somehow these films seem to be immune from box office blunders. I'm not sure what these films have got that Mortal Engines doesn't: they're creative voids and aggressively generic. For those of us who like sci-fi, I think it's important we support films like Mortal Engines. Even more cerebral films like Blade Runner 2049 - a critical success - flopped because no one went to see it (rather like the original Blade Runner).

If we want more sci fi action that's not superheroes or Transformers (or dodgy manga adaptations - Alita: Battle Angel doesn't look promising) we need to support other types of cinema, others we'll constantly sink to the lowest common denominator.

I'm exactly who this show is aimed at. I'm a 20-something who grew up watching the original, and now quite happy to enjoy a bit of nostalgia!

As everyone has noted, the similarities to the original exist with proper nouns and little more. This is a much darker take on it, and that's fine by me.

What I did find disconcerting is just how overtly Satanic it is ('Satanism' here refers to an odd mix of Wicca, various pagan belief systems and theistic Satanism). I don't have any strongly held religious views of my own, but I found this rather tasteless and the writers seemed to deliberately want to cause offence.

This clashed terribly with the characterisation, which is cutesy and oddball. Zelda and Hilda ooze with personality with great performances by Miranda Otto and Lucy Davis. Richard Coyle is sufficiently sinister as Father Blackwood, the Satanic high priest, and Michelle Gomez is excellent in everything she's in.

The younger performers do my head in. Ross Lynch plays Sabrina's boyfriend Harvey, and it's not really Lynch's fault, but boy is Harvey is a complete waste of space - you have to wonder what Sabrina sees in him beyond his looks and endless stream of cheesy dialogue which could only be the result of a screenwriter's first draft. Kiernan Shipka is a great actress, and she's perfect for the role of Sabrina, but she's so righteous it's annoying.

The show's political agenda is cloying and watching it has made me realise why conservatives hate us lefty-liberal millennial snowflake types (use whatever terms you like). Their attitude is so holier-than-thou in the face of Hollywood clichés (because we've never seen bullying jocks on screen before) and they're quite keen to advertise how enlightened they are, which only causes division, entrench views and inhibit constructive dialogue. It's unhelpful.

I long for the day when we can watch a film or TV show and see diversity on screen without having it telegraphed at us. Producers and screenwriters seem to struggle with 'naturalistic' diversity and instead like to draw attention to it rather than simply have actors and characters that fit the narrative. The best show I've seen on this recently is Thirteen Reasons Why, and while I have mixed views about the show itself, the characterisation was excellent and the diversity never felt shoe-horned, but natural.

In Sabrina, this detracts from the narrative as we flip between the interesting horror elements and the rather dull real-world storylines. Plot threads come and go, and the pacing is all over the place. At one point, Sabrina gets tasked with solving a puzzle that people have spent years attempting to crack. We know she's going to solve it eventually, but rather than see her work and study at it - unravelling a mystery and having an adventure on the way - she just solves it. Blink and you'll miss it. You're left thinking: oh.

The show is well-made enough. There are some odd editing choices and filming style that will irk some people, but it didn't really bother me. It looks really good.

Otherwise, I really just wish they'd made a solid fantasy/horror show for adults - something in a similar vein to Buffy or even Stranger Things. It didn't need all the extra clutter.

P.S. Oh yeah, and Salem...beloved Salem. He's there, only now he's just a cat who doesn't do a whole lot. His character has been replaced by a guy called Ambrose whose narrative role is to dish out the occasional bit of sage advice and be gay.

I'll first off say I support films like Tau and I want more of them to be made. While the occasional Iron Man or Black Panther is fine, I know I'm not alone in finding the dominance of comic book movies tiresome and boring. There comes a point when one explosion looks much like another and it's quite remarkable how you can watch so much going on on the screen and feel nothing.

So I like the fact there's been a little quiet renaissance going on, much of it supported by Netflix, in making small, low-key sci fi films and TV series. The quality is spectacularly variable.

I also like that Gary Oldman, one of the biggest names in showbiz, has lent his acting talents to a film that I daresay was well below his pay grade and, to be frank, not entirely deserving of him. In some mainstream media reviews of Tau I've seen people comparing him to Patrick Stewart, i.e. a big-name actor starring in something truly terrible. I think this comparison is completely unfair. Stewart starred as a literal pile of crap in a big-budget, extremely commercial CGI animation made by a massive studio aimed at...well...I'm not sure.

Tau, however, is a small-budget film produced by some studios I've never heard of starring emerging actors, directors, writers, etc. It feels like Alec Guinness supporting a new generation of creative talent in A New Hope.

Tau is nowhere near on the quality level of Star Wars, but it isn't as bad as some of the reviews will make it out to be. That said, it's not as clever as it thinks it is. In fact, it's quite stupid with some logical fallacies that should have been visible a mile off, and I don't think much research into contemporary AI research has happened. It'll have you questioning, a lot, why certain things are happening, and unfortunately the film doesn't really provide many answers (perhaps hoping you won't notice if they slap on a fantastic-looking layer of CGI and set design).

The acting is mostly good, though it would have been nice if Ed Skrein had put a little more charisma into his character - he played Daario Naharis in Game of Thrones, so he's obviously capable. The plot is a bit of an amalgam between Ex_Machina, Moon and 2001: A Space Odyssey (three infinitely better and less plot-holey films) and adds very little to the genre. I really liked Bear McCreary's score and the art department deserve a lot of praise, because the film looks amazing.

All in all, it's a film that has a lot to offer, but falls short thanks to a wafer-thin plot and what feels like a nervous director without the confidence to ask for second (and third, and fourth) takes to get the best performances out of his talented cast. Netflix have been churning out films and TV series like this at such a pace and I wish they'd slow down and be a bit more discerning rather than go with the Gatling gun approach and just hope one or two of them stick.

Let's first of all say that this isn't the sort of film I'd ordinarily watch, and I started watching it by accident after searching Netflix for 'The Circle', which a friend had recommended to me, starring Emma Watson, Tom Hanks, Karen Gillan among other well-known actors.

'Circle', however, contains no one famous. It became obvious pretty quickly that I was watching the wrong film, but something about it kept me interested. For all intents and purposes, it looks like a horror, which I don't usually like, but it's not remotely scary and is better described as a psychological thriller. It's not really that either - there's no action. In fact, the entire cast spend the entire film standing in a circle (and around in a circle) until they get killed off, whereby they disappear. Their deaths come at the hands of a mysterious orb thing in the middle of said circle that zaps them and they collapse. Not gruesome or gratuitous at all.

The best way I can describe is a combination of 'Waiting for Godot' meets the quiz show 'The Weakest Link'.

Consequently, it defies easy categorisation, but it wastes no time in establishing the theme that lasts for the whole film: a group of fifty men and women (and children) from all different walks of life wake up to find themselves in a circle faced with a machine that will kill one of them every two minutes. The twist? They get to anonymously vote for who gets killed. I know from having done a fair amount of amateur dramatics that one of the hardest things is being on stage without any lines. It's easy to act when you've got something to say and people to interact with, but just standing there having to react to everything while getting little to do yourself is hard. It's a credit to this cast, the majority of whom are completely unknown, that they all put in solid performances. Few characters get much more than a handful of lines each, and several get none at all, yet each of them feels like a real person with their own history and personality approaching their predicament in their own way.

As the characters figure out how the weird death chamber operates, leaders, and later factions, gradually emerge and facilitate discussion among them. How should they decide who gets killed next? One character proposes that the old people should go first - they've already lived their life - while others vehemently disagree: why are their lives less valuable? Another character notices that many of the people who get killed off early are black; others accuse them of 'playing the race card'.

The film, ultimately, is a discussion on how we value life. Is it possible to quantify the value of life? Is a pregnant woman really more valuable than a childless person; couples more valuable than singles; white-collar workers more valuable than blue-collar workers; children or the elderly? It's a topical film when we as a planet are facing chronic overpopulation and resource shortages. Debates around euthanasia, for example, often bring up the slippery slope: if an old person gets sick, isn't it just easier to kill them ('euthanasia') rather than invest time, effort and money into caring for them? It thinks it's cleverer than it actually is. While some of these moral discussions are given sophisticated, intelligent treatment, others, such as a conversation around race, are clunky and feel shoehorned. Also, the fact there are only two minutes between each death means there's little depth and dialogue exchanges are vanishingly brief. Nevertheless, it's a film that I found myself thinking about: what would I do in their situation? How would I play it? I think most people watching it will find themselves siding and associating with particular characters quite quickly, whether they would admit it or not. It's a great film for starting discussions. I watched it with a few friends and we spent quite a long time talking about this, and while the film itself may not be overly deep, you can build on that in your own time.

It's not perfect: the ending leaves a lot to be desired (though could set up a sequel), some deaths feel completely random with little rhyme or reason (like the script writers couldn't think of one), and because the film attempts to cover just about every facet of society it does feel a little thin rather than focusing on one or two topical issues.

The bottom line is I found myself really engaged in 'Circle'. It's a great example of what filmmakers can achieve with limited budgets. 'Circle' features one set, but it's brilliantly designed - striking and sinister. The sound design is equally ominous and adds to the chilling atmosphere. The camerawork and editing is good, and the directors have done a great job with the cast. The last film I watched on Netflix was 'Stasis', which was a painful mess from start to finish, so 'Circle' was a welcome and refreshing change.

Friday evening after work and I fancy watching an uncomplicated but entertaining film on Netflix, and Stasis looked promising. The thumbnail had a Mad Max vibe, and I like a good post-apocalyptic sci fi. After watching films like i-Boy and Other Life on Netflix I went into this film positively - there are plenty of good low-budget independent sci fi films out there.

This isn't one of them.

The warning signs that very little care has been put into this film are there right from the opening shots. It's a desolate landscape ravaged by nuclear war, yet there is traffic driving down the road in the background.

The premise is interesting, if not overly original. A group of rebels travel back in time to try and prevent a war. I'm not entirely sure what they're rebelling against. They look to be a group of generically evil blokes wearing uniforms that look like they've come from '60s era Star Trek or Doctor Who (by the way, post-apocalyptic landscape yet there's some kind of shiny base inhabited by uniformed blokes that seem to constitute some kind of government - they're evil because they say evil things, but we have no idea what they do that's bad).

We're soon lifted from the future and plunked back into contemporary society to a feud between a mother and a daughter (we don't know why). The daughter is rebellious because she is moody and wears emo makeup.

The rest of the film is mostly dull asides from anything. I don't particularly mind the unoriginal plot (let's face it, Mad Max: Fury Road is mostly just a car chase - that doesn't stop it from being amazing) providing it's well-scripted, acted, directed, edited, produced, etc. It's none of these things.

It's a film that feels like a live-action remake of an '80s anime (not least because that bloke that voices all the wise/old men in English anime dubs plays the evil guy). You get lines like, 'send in the hunter' followed immediately by a shot of the hunter working out before being sent back in time to pursue the protagonists. The acting is about as wooden as your average English anime dub.

The main weapon we're supposed be scared of is some kind of grenade that the hunter pursuing the protagonists skims along the floor, landing at the good guys' feet and waiting a few seconds before 'exploding' ('exploding' because the special effects in this film are Birdemic quality, but less funny). Of course, none of the good guys react to this grenade by, you know, running or chucking it back: they just stand there, though some of the braver ones shoot back with aim that would make Stormtroopers weep.

The musical score is poor. It goes from knock-off Vangelis-style atmospheric synth stuff to pseudo-orchestral in a flash. One of the many composers (seriously, there are hundreds according to the credits) has 'no formal musical training'. It shows.

The thing that really gets on my nerves about films like this is that you can go down to a regional theatre pretty much anywhere in the world and see a semi-professional play performed by talented actors desperate to get an opportunity to appear in film. There are talented composers busting a gut to get a commission for something like this. The same goes for costume designers, producers, editors, whatever. In my personal case, it's writing. I write for a living and would love to have one of my screenplays optioned. When I see films with writing as bad as this I wonder, 'what am I doing wrong that Nicole Jones-Dion isn't?' How did she managed to persuade people to give her money to make a film like this? Given that there are a lot of extremely talented creative professionals out there looking to make the transition from local work to larger projects like this released on platforms like Netflix it is astounding that they manage to make something as bad as this.

There's really nothing positive to say about Stasis. I should have just watched Mad Max.

If you know anything about science, and to be honest, even if you don't, you just have to force yourself to accept the premise for anything to make sense.

That premise is 'dual gravity', which is ridiculous, and the 'laws' of it are difficult to take seriously. The problem is the film is presented as a sci fi and it wants this idea of dual planets/gravity to be taken seriously. Had they presented it as a fantasy or simple fairy tale it would have worked a whole lot better.

Someone basically thought, 'it would be cool to have two planets practically touching each other where the inhabitants are socioeconomically segregated'. And it is, it looks fantastic, and it's a neat idea. Ultimately, that's where things finish.

What we end up with is a pretty bog standard Romeo and Juliet-style story of forbidden love, albeit one told in a rather unique setting.

So, enjoy the visuals and some solid acting, but that's really all the film has going for it. Yet another film that could really have done with a few more script revisions.

What Happened to Monday, like many science fiction films, has an idea it wants to explore and portrays a future shaped by that idea, and little else.

In this case the theme is overpopulation, and our future world is dominated by the CAB: Child Allocation Bureau, an organisation which brutally enforces a one-child policy. Apparently not a whole lot else has changed apart from some fancy gadgetry, so the film is at least focused if not especially deep. The setting is so vague I'm not even sure what country it's set in. I'm British, and many of the characters speak with various British accents, but then again many of them don't, including the main character(s). It looks Western European of some description, but I'm not sure. Perhaps this is the point: this could be anywhere, but I think a little more grounding would have been good.

Overpopulation is something no one seems to want to talk about. It is a very real threat to our planet and yet it's hardly ever discussed by world governments. That's because it's an issue that throws up some very challenging ethical questions. It's not even an especially common theme in science fiction, especially film.

The thing is, if you introduce a one-child policy, you have to be able to enforce it. China did, and it was controversial (for good reason) with all manner of human rights abuses stemming from it. Limiting a person's freedom to reproduce limits a fundamental part of what it means to be human. I'm not going to discuss this anymore here, but the conversation over how to deal with overpopulation quickly becomes complicated and controversial, and consequently no one does.

What Happened to Monday portrays a future that feels very realistic and entirely plausible, which makes it all the more intriguing.

The problem with the film is that it quickly becomes an action film. I like action, but in this case it's at the expense of storytelling and discussion of the theme. The film isn't sure what it wants to be: an action thriller or a more cerebral/philosophical sci fi. It's unfocused, and while the action is fantastically directed and entertaining, it feels out of place.

I finished the film thinking: so...what? The bad guys are defeated, but the film has given me nothing to think about. I was expecting the film to throw up some interesting ideas surrounding eugenics, social engineering and other such controversial (but important) topics, and it doesn't. The best sci fis have people talking about their themes presented and the ramifications of them for decades to come - think Blade Runner, 1984, Brazil, Metropolis, etc. - but WHTM gives you very little to talk about.

This may or may not be a problem for you depending on your expectations. If you want an action film, you'll enjoy it. If you want a Blade Runner-style cerebral sci fi, you won't. The problem is I think it set out to be the latter, but the writers gave up and shied away from it, which is a shame. The film just sort of ends without circling back to the premise and providing any alternatives to the paradigm established at the beginning. It's very odd.

Overall, it's a solid film with a fantastic performance from Noomi Repace and a competent supporting cast. It just lacks ambition and feels a little rushed.

Brian Yorkey and his creative team have set themselves one hell of a challenge. I don't believe art and media need to be entertaining to be worthwhile. Cormac McCarthy's 'The Road' is an important and exceptionally well-written novel, yet it's hard to call it entertaining. There are plenty of such examples to pick from over hundreds of years of art.

They do need to be engaging, however. I, as a viewer or reader, need to be gripped and immersed in the narrative. So the question is , how do you make a TV series involving sexual assault, drug addiction, violence, suicide, blackmail and numerous other challenging topics engaging?

As a TV series, the writers want us to watch the next episode. A film or a novel is a standalone work. You watch a film and that's it. You may like or not, but you've paid your admission to the cinema or brought the book and you're done. A TV series, however, gives us the option of watching more episodes. If we don't watch them, the series is a flop.

'The Road' is also set in a post-apocalyptic landscape, one alien to us, and filled with alien characters in alien situations. 13 Reasons Why is set in the school environment we're all familiar with and filled with adolescent and adult characters facing challenges that we've all faced ourselves.

Does Yorkey intend for 13 Reasons Why to be entertaining as opposed to engaging? I suspect the answer is yes. It's gripping television. I watched the whole thing over a lazy long weekend and I'd be lying if I didn't get the 'just one more episode' vibe at the end of each one. It made me want to tune in thanks to a variety of clever (albeit common) writer's tricks and a damn good script.

If Season 1 was controversial, then Season 2 is likely to prove doubly so. There's a tendency to turn things up to eleven with sequels, but I don't think 13 Reasons Why does. Rather, it fleshes out the main characters further and introduces some new ones to function as foils. We hear from other characters, not just the rather narrow narrative of Clay and Hannah, but Zach, Tyler, Bryce, Jessica and others. There are multiple sides to every story, and the narrative of Season 2 is driven by those nuances.

It is painfully topical (and, consequently, extremely close to the mark at times), dealing with the sorts of issues that pop up in the news every single day. I've read reviews saying that the characters are self-absorbed and melodramatic and I think that's completely unfounded. Given what these characters have all experienced, their actions (for the most part) make sense.

I, personally, as a 20-something heterosexual male from a background not dissimilar to most of the characters on the show found myself sympathising with pretty much all of them on some level. That includes the darker elements, particularly when it comes to the way in which we treat women, and I think most men would agree with me (whether they'd admit it or not). Adolescent boys do stupid things. Hormones do exist and they do drive boys to act in reprehensible ways. However, boys can control the way they act (for everyone's benefit), but they need to be shown. I, fortunately, was. Many others are not.

These things do not make us inherently bad people. Part of the cleverness of of 13 Reasons Why is that none of the characters are perfect. In fact, just about all of them (male and female) do something that is either downright stupid or at least hurtful. A teenage boy who sexually harasses a girl can grow up to be a more enlightened man who finds sexual harassment reprehensible providing he has that guidance. This is why framing these discussions in the context of a school works. People who are supposed involved in teenagers' educations sometimes, perhaps even often, fail in that task. We ask: why? Are they bad people? Or are there more systemic problems?

Season 1 has been criticised partly because Hannah effectively ruined quite a lot of people's lives through her actions, or at least caused them prolonged suffering. Season 2 doesn't argue with that. In fact, Hannah had plenty of faults, and the show quite openly discusses them. Clay is our main conduit for this and voices what quite a lot of people will be thinking, opening the narrative for a conversation.

Another criticism is that people lie. Hannah lied about how she was feeling. She was rarely forthright about things, as are other characters. I get that. I struggle with depression, and at times it has become very serious. Just the other day I was reading an editorial on the BBC website that discussed mental health and financial stress, and I found myself nodding along. Refusing to open letters, head-in-the-sand attitude, not answering the phone, not responding to texts/emails/whatever, yet still go out in public dressed nicely with a big smile on their face and convincingly acting like nothing's wrong.

It is extremely difficult to talk and be open, even to the people closest to you who have your back and you trust. People who have struggled with depression will understand. People who have not find it hard to figure out why such people don't just approach a situation pragmatically. I'm a scientist - I'm logical and pragmatic and rational, yet that scientific way of dealing with things often just doesn't transfer to dealing with mental health issues. By their very nature, it It's hard to explain, but I think the writers of 13 Reasons Why get it.

Something I'm sort of reluctant to include, but feel like I ought to, is the show's diversity. I was impressed by it, mainly because the show doesn't draw attention to it. The characters have diverse backgrounds without making it feel like a box-ticking exercise. (That said, there's a distinct lack of South Asian characters, i.e. there are none, and I just wonder why South Asian people are so rarely featured in the media.) Diversity isn't just racial, but economic, social and sexual. It feels representative of present-day America (or Europe). Sexuality is dealt with organically and naturally. It just feels like it belongs in the show and gay characters have relationship struggles just as straight characters do. Gay characters are far from being stereotypes. In fact, all the characters avoid being stereotypes.

Performances, set design, music, direction, etc. are all solid and I don't really have a whole lot to say.

The bottom line is that this is a show that deals with some very challenging topics in a format that's not a documentary or an instructional video or whatever. It's a TV show that wants you to come back and watch more (and it's set itself up for a Season 3) - i.e. it wants to be entertaining as well as engaging, and that's where I begin to find it uncomfortable. There are times, I think, when the show just doesn't have either the expertise or the time to properly examine certain themes. While Season 2 does refer viewers to online resources if they want to find out more, this is perhaps inadequate. I think the show crosses the line on several occasions and attempts to tackle too many things without giving them all the attention they deserve.

I still have mixed views about this. However, the show has got me thinking about things. It's given me new perspectives and a lot of things to ponder. I hope it does foster conversation among adolescents and adults alike, because mental illness and sexual harassment/assault are serious issues that are still so badly understood by the populous. If a hit Netflix show can get people talking, and I include authorities in this, then that's good.

People say that the core message of Season 1 is to 'be nice to each other'. I disagree. Society doesn't run on 'being nice'. Capitalism often involves in screwing other people over. Forgiveness and charity rarely feature in business and politics. Forget it. Real life often isn't nice. I think the core message is: talk to each other. It's easier said than done, and that's why I think the secondary message is: listen to each other. Actually listen and actually talk: have meaningful conversations, because that's ultimately what will help people work through their problems.

I enjoy the Fallout series of games. In these games, you play a person who's survived a nuclear apocalypse and explore the wasteland of America completing quests and missions. Being computer games, they're designed to be fun and entertaining.

Dystopia is popular right now. From the unending surge of zombies (World War Z, Walking Dead, etc.) to YA (Hunger Games, Maze Runner) to more series, adult media (Automata, Blade Runner 2049).

For all their attempts at making the future look grim, I personally find them quite appealing. I loathe paperwork, you see. It's the bane of my existence. I'm someone who does. I enjoy my job, for the most part, but mention 'stakeholders', 'APR percentage' and 'audits' and my brain switches off. I honestly don't care, and it stresses the hell out of me. It does more than that. It makes me miserable - depressed, even. I can't cope with it. I can't cope with the intricacies of the bureaucratic system. It confuses me, it gets me into trouble when I don't even know why, I hate it. I hate it with a passion.

I have anarchic tendencies. I believe that our biology is designed to help us survive against nature. We're intelligent beings, and we've evolved to cope with the adversities thrown at us by nature.

The thing is, I believe I would stand a better-than-average chance of surviving the apocalypse. I'm intelligent, and I'm tough as old boots. Ask me to do a tax rebate and I'm utterly useless, but I don't care about the cold or the heat or noise while I sleep. I'll deal with that no problem.

And that's the thing with dystopian fiction - it appeals to me. They show us worlds where people like me would actually be quite successful when the vast majority of people would flounder.

But not The Road. I've read the book, and it's bleak. Utterly, utterly bleak. I'm under no illusion that our usual media diet romanticises the apocalypse - makes it strangely appealing, despite everything. The Road does not. From start to finish, it's cynical, miserable, depressing, extremely grey (like, it might as well be in black and white) and raw.

There's no attempt as making the apocalypse look positive - adding some glamour into it like the Fallout games do.

This is not really science fiction. If you address it rationally by questioning the character motivations you'll be disappointed. This is not really sci fi in the traditional sense. This isn't a strict narrative. Characters act irrationally, even stupidly, and the whole cause of the apocalypse is unexplained.

This, instead, is a drama with an apocalyptic backdrop. It's completely non-political. It doesn't care about the causes of the trouble, but rather how people react to it. It's a psychological examination of the question: 'How do you retain your sense of morality when everyone else has forsaken theirs?'.

That's a difficult question to answer. Does the film do it satisfactorily? In my view, no. It's a big topic, and I wonder if the film has felt too conflicted by its commercial needs to make some money and its desire to tell a more cerebral narrative than your average blockbuster. Certain aspects are glossed over. Other things are ignored completely and logic falls by the wayside more than once.

It moved me, however. To tears. And it really did get me thinking. Hey, life's pretty good. I may not be brilliant at coping with the unending form-filling and I'm never going to care much about the petty conflicts that dominate local politics, but I have money, food and shelter...and friends...and family. That's what storytelling is about.

If you go into The Road expecting a zombie-style action-fest you'll be disappointed. It's slow-paced and repetitive and never gives any character any glory, No one's a hero. Go into it, right now, at this time when the media is fixated on the Middle East conflict(s), Russia, North Korea, Cambridge Analytica, nationalism, #metoo, Brexit, Trump, Iran, whatever and everyone is losing their s*** and you might find yourself approaching it very differently.

*Written from the perspective of someone who has read the first book only and seen the previous films*.

First of all, I'm glad I waited until I could borrow the DVD off a friend rather than paid to see it in the cinema.

It's a long film, clocking in at nearly 2.5 hours. I'd be lying if I said I sat in front of my TV and watched it start to finish without distraction. The film opens with a big action set piece - Thomas and team attempting a train heist. It's cool - nicely shot with decent enough acting. However, my first distraction came when I realised I had no idea who anyone, asides from Thomas, was. I'd completely forgotten the events of The Scorch Trials (which says a lot about the quality of that film...) so I ended up revising the plot on Wikipedia.

There's not really anything of substance in the film. The action set pieces are cool, but they're not Mad Max Fury Road cool (I mean, what is?). The music does the job, but that's all it does. At some point while watching the film I decided to find out who the composer was. I'd never heard of Joe Paesano, and there's a reason for that, because the score is devoid of melody (just chords played on strings the whole way through) and completely forgettable. He's no John Williams or Danny Elfman. The costuming is fine, but not Star Wars The Phantom Menace fine (costumes were definitely a redeeming feature of that film). The acting is fine, the editing is fine, the directing is fine, the story is fine...it's all just fine.

To be honest I'm not really sure what the plot is. There's a generic zombie virus that's infecting people (because that's never been done before...) and some kids have special blood that's immune or something. I don't know, it's not clear. The bad guys are experimenting on said kids to develop a cure, but apparently that's a bad thing so a war breaks out.

The movie is so desperate to have an antagonist that it has to be manufactured at every possible moment. Littlefinger (or whatever he's supposed to be called in the film) has no obvious motive for anything. He and Effie from Skins plus generic scientist lady sort of do some sciencey stuff and yeah it probably wouldn't get past your average ethics committee nowadays, but this is a post-apocalyptic society with a virus busy killing everyone, so perhaps we can be a bit flexible on this.

The problem is that everybody wants the same thing, including Littlefinger, who's the big bad evil, and really that's the problem. I'm still not sure why Littlefinger is the bad guy. I'm still not sure why Thomas is the good guy, either. The film tells us this, but it seems like the whole conflict could be avoided if everyone just sat down and had a conversation about the whole thing. They're trying to kill each other, but why?

I've even googled this, and I've yet to find a website that will enlighten me,

The film is attempting to go for moral complexity, and fails utterly in this respect. Game of Thrones does moral complexity, and Littlefinger is at the scheming heart of that, but the whole Maze Runner franchise is just confusing. It seems like James Dashner had the idea of a teenage boy waking up in a maze with no memory tasked with escaping it and thought, 'yeah, I like that - that's cool.' And it is - the first book (and film, to an extent) are pretty neat. The problem is, Dashner seems to have realised at some point that he needed to explain why the maze existed in the wider conflict.

At that point, Dashner lost all his creativity, because the Maze you see in the first film/book are quite honestly the only original ideas he had.

Overall, that's the problem. It's merely passable. It just exists. I'm getting married next year, and I hope to have children of my own. I suspect when they're old enough I'll read the Harry Potter books with them and watch the films. A few years on from that, maybe I'll introduce them to the Hunger Games, but the Maze Runner (and Divergent and a lengthy host of cloned YA stories) will have been long forgotten, relegated to the part of Netflix you have to scroll several pages down to find. There's no longevity here.

I don't regret seeing it. As an aspiring novelist myself, it's purely mediocre films like this that tell me a lot about what not to do (that said, I'm guessing Dashner made a fair amount of dosh from it all).

I should first of all point out that I saw this film only in October of 2010, so not exactly contemporary with its release. Being only 20 years old and perhaps used to flashy computer graphics I may approach Dune with some degree of bias. However, Metropolis is one of my favourite films so age doesn't have much bearing on me.

As a big Frank Herbert (and Dune) fan I was really looking forward to seeing the film adaptation, fully expecting much of the book to be culled...but I spent much of the film confused.

I really struggled to understand what was going on much of the time. There was no build up throughout the film, more just a series of events which merge into some gooey mess with lack of an understandable plot.

I think Lynch has sort of missed a lot of the point of the book. Herbert makes a number of satirical comments in the novel and pungent points regarding human nature and society, which are completely missed. The Harkonnens irritated me particularly, not portrayed accurately at all.

The score is mediocre. It had little substance, the main theme is pretty non-descript and throughout the rest of the film I had problems trying to work out much of a melody.

The costumes saved it for me, I thought the costumes were spectacular and I really enjoyed the interpretations, particularly of the Reverend Mother.

Bitterly disappointed and a waste of three hours of my life. I didn't worry about pausing the film to make a cup of tea (lots of cups of tea), there wasn't really much to miss.

I get the impression that the people who gave this film good ratings aren't fans of the books...and that the converse is true also. I come into the second category.

Let me start off with the positives.

The cinematography was brilliant. The special effects that they included (and they are somewhat limited in this film compared to others) are very well done. But maybe I shouldn't be hugely impressed, it is fairly standard now.

The score was fantastic, but perhaps it didn't have quite the same 'epicness' to it that others did.

The acting was very well done, the actors each did their best with the script they were given. Felton, Grint and Rickman I think deserve special applause.

I get the impression that Yates was being lazy...leaving out the battle scene at the end...maybe it was too much effort? After all, he is guaranteed it to be a high grossing film, why spend more money on complicated scenes? It was a funny film and I did laugh, but it wasn't hysterical. The humour in it is fairly standard, nothing new. Unfortunately I think the humour did deviate from the darkness that the novels conjured up. Did I really get the impression that anything serious was going on? Not really, yeah sure, the dementors make an impression at the beginning, after that it is just teenage angst until the end when they make a half-hearted attempt at explaining the actual problem Harry has to face...and it's a pretty epic task! It was always going to deviate from the books, I accept that...but there is a limit. What they have included is very good, unfortunately they did leave out some fairly crucial stuff.