Reviews

Fleabag is such a over-hyped television programme of the last decade or so. The problem with Fleabag's group of fantatics is that they take all of the characters to be actual representations of everyday life. This is ultimately the aim of the self-centred diatribe of Fleabag's writer - to simply perpetuate stereotypically jaded characters and slapping on the label of "that's reality" onto it. Instead of challenging anything regarding all of the subject matters it broaches, it ends up simply reflecting the public's already glaringly dogmatic & harmful prejudices about dating. Namely, "playing the dating game." Fleabag treats everything going on around her as a sophomoric prank UNLESS it is all about he own feelings. There is minimal redeemability due to the shallow depth of the entire programme.

The so-called special, ingenious comedy in Fleabag consists of:

• Fleabag herself, who desperately tries in vain to convince the audience why she's just as normal as other narcissistic, emotionally stunted, upper middle-class people through cringeworthy, juvenile irreverent invective. Fleabag has all the hallmarks of an uninteresting, self-centred streamer, youtuber, tiok-toker - take your pick. She stirs up drama at every turn which is apparently supposed to be how all women behave. Yes, she has her tragic backstory which serves as a manipulative yet crude attempt to foist pathos into the audience's hearts. Furthermore, it is her tragic backstory that weakly attempts to hide the lack of actual emotional depth to Fleabag, making her seem more relatable, giving the audience the mistaken impression that she is capable of a deeper form of love.

• A cheap, ineffectual breaking the fourth wall device encapsulated in Fleabag's haughty, self-indulgent know-it-all monologue styled remarks that are supposed to sum-up everyone's jaded "modern" view about people and relationships.

• Even when she falls on hard times Fleabag can rely on the bank of mummy and daddy when things turn south, even though they are less than perfect because, YET AGAIN, we have to be reminded in the most cliche, everything-is-grey, narrative possible: "that's reality". We, as the audience, have to be reminded that being quite well-off is not all prosecco and garden parties. They have real dysfunctions because how else can Fleabag make us feel pathos towards her?

• All males apart from the main man are treated as base individuals who either say dogmatic things about women and "play the dating game" by engaging in stupid social cues indicative ofvsaid dating game (because everyone's doing that, right? *wink, wink*). The portrayal of most of the men in this way is likely executed by Waller-Bridge to give the illusion that Waller-Br-, sorry, Fleabag, the illusion that she is ever so slightly better and more three dimensional than them, even though she is just as toxic.

It's incredibly sad that people who heap praise on this show seem to confuse it's cliche dialogue as cutting edge, original British comedy. In actuality, the show has as much entertainment value as a teenager's online vlog and forshadows the long-term decline of Britain's comedy in a more fragmented comedy culture.

Don't Hate The Playaz is lowest common denominator bread and circus stuff. The show is gives you a taste of what it would be like if you dragged a segment of the most vain, showboats and narcissistic people from of social media websites and put them on a television show. In many ways, Don't Hate the Playaz is Reminiscent of the experimental flops they used to air on channel 4 in the 90s. Tries desperately to mask it's own boringness by appearing outrageous and over the top and full of narcissistic, boring, uninteresting, conformist personalities. There is nothing really here except drumming up a gullible, impressionable crowd into whooping at everything the cast say, very much like they often do in the US. Day-time to is more entertaining than this!

Underneath the flamboyance and the deadpan comedy is a cardboard cutout that contains very little. The Grand Budapest Hotel is perhaps a dramatic kind of postmodern parody of early 20th century old films, yet I can't see the appeal of why it is regarded as funny by it's admirers. The main character is a wealthy, flamboyant, hedonistic, bisexual bachelor and con-artist who we are supposed to be rooting for because, presumably, he's 'fun.' We are supposed to find his hedonistic antics and the fact he's had lots of lovers funny too, possibly because the people who do love this film are boring middle-class people are like imagining being in this role? Who knows. It is supposed to be funny that the Lobby boy, the typecasted deadpan sidekick, does all the preverbial heavy lifting due to his laughably diverse skill-sets. But it isn't funny. As the farcical series of pantomime-styled events unfolds, The Grand Budapest Hotel relies on wooden, stilted dialogue and various forms of mise-en-scene to generate some amusement from it's audience but it doesn't really work and comes across as stale, vapid and is infantile farce of a production. To call it pretentious means to call it a film that is under the delusion that the material that it employs is more sophisticated that is actually is and attracts a cohort of idolisers who think likewise.

The Nest creates a tense and forboding atmosphere as it follows the life of a dysfunctional wealthy family in the 1980s whose patriarch is a man that has no moral scruples in getting what he wants at any cost. We are often shown examples of self-entitlement, detachment and avarice which drives a wedge between the family. Given the narcissistic nature of the central character the audience is left without any hope that he will change his behaviour beneath his empty promises that he makes to his family. All in all, the film moves at a steady pace but reaches something of an anti-climax as we realise that the bonds that bring this family together are only superficial. This may reflect the rather Faustian bargain that wealthy families may enter in order to preserve their prestige and wealth at the expense of any deeper connection to their family and the people around them, including society. The Nest provides a good portrayal of a man who puts himself first at the expense of all other things and is addicted to thie way of living, despite his promises to abandon it.

After Love presents a realistic portrayal of a woman who goes through a whole spectrum of emotions in response to discovering a dark secret. Joanna Scanlan's portrayal of Mary, a woman who has discovered her husband was having an affair was excellent. It is intriguing yet deeply uncomfortable to see the central character being forced to deal with a painful situation, particularly when her means of dealing with her grief are morally dubious. However, we cannot help but be compelled to empathise with these morally dubious acts even though we hopefully might not endorse them ourselves. While we can empathise with the other characters the empathy that we feel towards them is offset and minimised by contrast to the loneliness of Mary and rightly so. At no point does Joanna Scanlan's performance feel hamfisted or stilted as we see her navigate through the turmoil generated by loss and, at the same time, infidelity. It is difficult not to feel anger on her behalf, yet what is more important about this film is the importance of finding a means of moving on and not letting the pain of infidelity consume her.

Clearly, the portrayal is an economically privileged former white-collar professional. Nevertheless, this film delivers in terms of emotional depth and intensity. What makes The Father different from other films that deal with the diseases like dementia is that it doesn't just focus on the experience of family members. It is centred on the sufferer of dementia, which is very believable and at no point feel forced or saccharine. The emotions within the film are wideranging. There are some warm-hearted, even funny parts to Anthony's character, punctuated by the sadness in learning that he is unable to control the ability to discern the real from the figments created by his disease. While the film deals with a very uncomfortable topic it is worth every bit of viewing time and reminds us that we need to treat people who suffer from this terrible disease humanely.

Unfortunately I had high expectations for this film, which makes it all the more painful to have to write this review. It was unfortunate to watch a film in which the targets, a group of the elite, could have been attacked in such a more effective and witter fashion. Instead you have some pretty cheap slapstick, gross-out humoured attempts at comedy which is overdone. If you were expecting any witty dialogue then forget it. The audience will get the obvious symbolism littered carelessly throughout the film, but apart from that it comes across as a very formulaic, falling pretty flat in the kinds of mechanisms it employs. The latter third of Triangle of Sadness becomes completely predictable and doesn't really come across as satirical comedy. It seems to bafflingly mark a transition away from satire to more of a castaway sort of situation that appears to be a trashy postmodern recreation of the old film, "The Admirable Crichton." The exception is that it lacks any depth and could've been so much better, even when it does try desperately hard to come across as furnishing the audience with deep political or philosophical themes. Was it supposed to be funny, a progressive feminist take or sophisticated subversive turn in watching one of the wealthy characters become manipulated into having sex with one of the workers in a wholly predictable "exploited turned exploiter" character role reversal? In short, it is a postmodern farce that lacks any real substance and far too heavily on style - appearing to be more prosaic than it actually is.

I watched the first episode. Ten minutes in I noticed that the incessant snarky banter, almost as though the characters are trying to outdo one another on how witty they can be, is Moffat's trademark in trying to make the show more interesting than it is. The first episode is enough to demonstrate the completely contrived, US snarky banter styled, unconvincing material in this episode. The plot feels as though it's been devised by a creative arts student. The reason why David Tennant's character lies is completely unconvincing and leads to frustrating and long-winded nonsense. No amount of snark banter can save it from it's fate of being the most lacklustre attempt at a gritty thriller that I have had the misfortune of watching.

The main issue I have with this episode is the cliché, dogmatic and very corporate, sociopathic, Nietzschean message that somehow acting like an andrenaline junkie and taking risks will make you go far in life. It is unconvincing and, frankly, a tired old trope that shouldn't really be taken that seriously but is because people are fed this sort of tripe and become narcissistic uncaring and selfish cretins..

I enjoyed the story and the appearance of Q. However, in regards to the overall message - that you have to behave in a brash, arrogant and reckless way to be a success is, frankly, a tiresome, dogmatic, overrated and American message.

The first half is good, with some rehashed but also some new impressions used in different contexts. Also the Philip Glass music should be praised as it is used throughout the show, even though it occasionally comes across as though it belongs more on a travel/documentary programme. However, the second half becomes more and more involved with themes of aging and too fixated on sex which becomes insufferably depressing to watch because it borders on ageism and demonises it. Yes, I get that the Greeks had an obsessive fetish of youth and beauty but come on! I'm not even middle-aged or older but it is an insult to a demographic that will become more common in the future. Also jokes about euthanasia are not really that funny either, but whatever.

The acting is okay but the plot is convoluted, leaving you with many unanswered questions. It just does not deliver and leaves you feeling completely cheated. The only thought that will preoccupy your mind by the film's end will be: 'Why did I end up being led into watching a film with a promising premise that ends up doing the equivalent of spitting in the faces of it's audience by leaving so many plot holes that it makes swiss cheese look fairly wholesome looking by comparison?"

I watched this film hoping that it would poke fun at the art world but was left feeling hollow at it's approach. Like most satires, it is a film that simply sporadically presents a bunch of scenes, absent of context or relation to one another. They don't unify and create any particular unified message about the pretentiousness of the art world other than it's absurdity. However, the scenes, while having the capcity bizarre to the point of pointless boredom inducing, are believable. Instead of tearing down the pretentiousness of the art world it appears to beat the drum of it's own sense of depth and self-importance, thereby quickly becoming a very stale and uninteresting experience.

The most ignorant thing about admirers of the Inbetweeners is that they think that people's distaste of the show is measured by how old they are. But the truth is this is why I have always despised the show. You are assumed to love it because "we've all behaved like an obnoxious bully at one time or another."

The Inbetweeners effectively naturalises all of the worst, alienating notions about what it is to be young. If you're an outsider, don't expect this to give you any solace or feeling of belonging. The main problem with The Inbetweeners is that is turns the senselessly cruel into the comedic. Whether it is successful or not is open to other's interpretation. However, the more it is successful in blurring the line between cruelty and comedy, the more permissible cruelty is and the more insensitive people are generally, given that most people are more influenced by the media they digest than they would think.

If anything it reveals alot about why the UK is the loneliest country in Europe so...yeah...thanks Inbetweeners for showing how callous, superficial and vain our generations are! A long held tradition.

Ah the Lighthouse, another film that I had thought was going to consist of a promising storyline but instead I was left feeling devoid of anything after watching. The film has no meaningful or worthwhile story. It focuses entirely on the relationship of the two characters, with the rest of the scenes consisting of surrealist themes that leaves you thinking that it will lead somewhere but of course it doesn't because what the audience is supposed to feel is gratitude at the profundity of all the poetic license and deep symbolism. There are no answers to the questions the film raises. It's just a pointless unfulfilling spectacle with a bareboned story, at best.

I had some doubts when I first saw the trailer. I had initially rolled my eyes and thought that Knives Out would it be a fairly standard, average run-of-the-mill murder mystery that would also try to too hard to be funny that it would come across as arrogant & self-absorbed in its own "art", similar the posturing tone of the Grand Budapest Hotel. Yet these dismal expectations of Knives Out were thankfully and surprisingly dashed.

The film strikes the perfect balance of intrigue, suspense, excitement, eccentricity, warmth and amusement. The entire cast are excellent, particularly Daniel Craig and the main character. There are some really funny scenes too and it's quite difficult to make me laugh out loud at the comedy material applied to most films. Yes, it can of course be argued that Knives Out has the usual tropes of the traditional Agatha Christie styled murder mysteries, but it builds on those traditional tropes and I think it creates something quite unique. It made quite an impression.

I usually enjoy satirical comedies, however I am always weary in the liberatory power of satire as it can often present as a double-edged sword. Take this film, for example. While I understand its fictitious narrative conveys the power of propaganda through the perspective of a child, it seems like this alone is the only reason why there are some who hold it in such a high regard. It is still a make believe representation. Ordinarily this is fine but for those who are inevitably gullible enough to take this satire as an accurate account of Nazi Germany I think it is potentially dangerous for it to play at devils advocate.

The tonal mish-mash between comedic and tragic seems, I think misguided and isn't particularly funny given the subject matter. There was the odd bit of amusement but generally the story was quite dull, meandering unless your perspective is clouded by an idealisation of children's 'ways of knowing', to paraphrase the postmodern mindset.

I admit, I went in withfairly high expectations here. I had thought that the film would be less a horror and more based on an analysis of the psychology of being in a cult. The film while initially intriguing becomes abruptly, about halfway through, very painful to watch, probably to compensate for it's lack of substance. If you are intrigued by Midsommar because you're expecting it to be like the Wickerman (original film) you'll be disappointed. The characters are very passive. They are irritatingly idiotic and there are no redeeming features about any of them by the time the film is reaches it's paaaaainfully slooooow conclusion. Believe me, it is painful.

The truly bizarre aspect about Midsommar, is that initially the film carries a sense of impending morbid sort of dread, which is very effective.

However, the writer/director seems to, later on in the story, drive this morbid dread into overkill, as if to deliberately outrage the audience in an attempt to rival other films that carry a similar genre? Who knows. But this is what ruins the film.

It comes across as unnecessary because you are just watching what I have already described in the review's title. It's as if the diretor/writer made it their personal drive to make the film so unbearable in the hopes of outraging the audience. However, it is this drive that ultimately paints Midsommar as a film that is trying to comes across as something more than it is. Unfortunately it is ultimately nothing more than a standard format of a horror film hiding in the clothes of something profound sounding and feeling.

It think it is unfair to think of Ray and Liz as wholly unlikeable because it is a surface level interpretation and it unsympathetic view on the audience's part to what drives the character's negligence. Clearly, they are two deeply flawed characters whose lack of humanity, or negligence, is driven by their constant battle to survive in a very bleak era.

There is nothing admirable about these two characters but the film definitely delivers a strong social message about the fate of the vulnerable in a society that ordinarily and continues to look down on them without remorse. In that sense, you begin to understand that Ray and Liz are the way they are because society has treated them cruelly and swept them out of view.

Despite being gay, I found the format patronising and unrelatable. It doesn't particularly feel as though things have improved for gay people, despite decriminalisation and the adoption of gay marriage. I think it's because most gay people remain lonely and only those who have the time, the material wealth and the social networks can link up with other gay people.

There is very little community even today so I think I found it quite depressing that this televised piece has to preach and make it sound as though we've never had it better by presenting all the monologues based on past experiences to present the point that things have gotten better. The problems gay people face have merely changed and become more difficult to see in some cases.

This film certainly opens people's eyes to how environmental destruction is detrimental to people's health. It is also a lesson to how the era of self-regulation has enabled a lack of transparency and accountability by powerful global corporations who, motivated by profit, continually aim to obstruct anyone who challenges them.

There are some very powerful, moving and memorable scenes here. It is easily the best film I have seen in a while as it is based on a true story, even though some small scenes have been fictionalised). It isn't a film for the fans of gladiatorial-styled superhero filmic spectacles. It is about real people and how doing the right thing in a weary world. This often means no reward but, regardless, it must be fought for and the film determinedly drives that message through.

If you know little about how people's health is affected by some of the things we buy out of a simple assumption that they are safe, you might be in for a shock after you've watched Dark Waters.

I saw the pilot and deduced that this is the kind of programme that attempts to communicate a profound series of points but merely comes across as an amateur surreal experimental college project farce! In fact, it is like watching a series of experimental college films all rolled into one. Messy, convolluted, melodramatic and meaningless. No real story.

Having a nonsensical dream about watching paint dry and having a conversation with the paint about the paint's collection of toothpicks, existential, Foucault's hermeneutics of the subject as the paint dries happily in the sun is marginally preferable this watching this drivel.

Film about a vulnerable boy who is exploited by a psychopath. I don't see any black comedy in it at all. What is funny about it? It's just one long depressing bad dream sequence. Having being a fan of Nighty night, I know what black comedy is. This is NOT a comedy.