miss_lady_ice-853-608700

Sweet Bobby: My Catfish Nightmare (2024)

Not so sweet Bobby

Many of the reviews are unnecessarily harsh on Kirat; the woman met her previous boyfriend when she was just a teenager, prior to social media. Bobby's story is completely outlandish and makes no logical sense- if he was in witness protection, why would he have a Facebook profile very similar to his original name and risk contacting her?- but other profiles (which turn out to be fake) back up his story. It is surprising just what lengths the catfish went to- 60 fake profiles, with the main ones up to date as if they were normal people. It's actually the fake profiles that keep pushing Kirat towards the 'relationship' with Bobby- had there been just one fake profile Kirat might have been more sceptical.

It would have been interesting to explore why Kirat accepted this online relationship for so long- she never really reflects on what made her prey to it. Perhaps she didn't get the support from the community when her previous relationship fell apart so she was desperate to seek out this community online. Why did none of her family intervene? They had no emotional involvement with Bobby that might have caused them to overlook all the red flags. Even if he was a real person, he was clearly not a committed partner- particularly as he 'cheated' on her and had a baby with who she thought to be his ex!

It's quite an interesting case study in that there isn't really a crime committed against Kirat- 'Bobby' never asks for money. The plea to make catfishing a crime based on its emotional consequences seems more like Kirat grasping at straws in order to get retribution for wasting 10 years of her life on a lie.

Just Friends (2005)

Sexist drivel

This film has not aged well! The film revolves around a single joke- Ryan Reynolds in a fat suit playing a dorky teen in love with his glamorous best friend, and then suddenly he becomes Ryan Reynolds and the best friend (Amy Smart) fancies him. Because the plot is so run-of-the-mill, Anna Faris is brought in to play a bunny boiling superstar singer who has no talent and relies on manic sex appeal. She is, as intended to be, an incredible nuisance.

Ostensibly it's a rom-com except there's no rom (film seems geared towards men rather than women). The concept of the 'friend zone' is all based around the idea that if a guy is nice to a woman and acts as a friend, she is obliged to have sex with him. Amy Smart as the best friend comes off as a shallow jerk as it basically implies she only fancies him now because he's thin. Reynolds' character is too much of an entitled jerk for us to root for him and there's no chemistry.

The only funny character in it is the love rival Dusty (played by Chris Klein) but that's not enough reason to watch a film that's not even trashy in a fun way.

Greatest Days (2023)

You can take it

Really it's more like a 6.5 but the current IMDB score feels a bit mean. The story is quite straightforward- 40-something Rachel (Aisling Bea) wins tickets to a reunion concert of her favourite boyband. She wants to take her fellow fans- her school friends who she has not seen for 25 years. The film flicks between 1993, when the girls are 16, and the present-day (doesn't look like the screenplay was updated from the original musical, which places the film in 2018).

Some of the reviewers have got confused- the band is not meant to be Take That; we never find out the name of the band (they are just referred to as 'the boys'). The band themselves are actually very bland and you can't imagine any girl getting in a frenzy over them. This is a drawback in the early part of the film because we're listening to Take That songs being sung like a weak bit of karaoke. Later on in the film the characters get to sing some of their songs (the highlights being 'Back for Good', as the women duet with their younger selves, and a funeral version of 'A Million Love Songs').

The younger actors were particularly good and it will bring back happy nostalgic memories for women, losing their school friendships, but there are a few plot elements that just don't ring true:

• One of the members of the original friendship group is killed on the way back from the concert. Surely this would mean you avoid their music because it's associated with tragedy?

• Women do not lose contact for 25 years and suddenly revert to their childhood selves, reigniting the old passions. You get the feeling these girls would have eventually lost touch anyway.

It's obviously going for the Mamma Mia! Feel with the emphasis on friendships but the difference is that ABBA doesn't have a typical audience- they cross different generations- and everyone knows their songs, whereas Take That have a specific audience (women in their thirties and forties), and whilst they do have good songs, they don't have the same classic status.

I did overall enjoy the film's message about not completely burying your younger self- I feel like this was really the main theme rather than long lost friends reuniting.

Hail, Caesar! (2016)

Hail Hollywood!

For those who have no knowledge of Golden Age Hollywood, skip this as the humour is very much based on in-jokes.

Fans of Golden Age Hollywood will enjoy the pastiches of Hollywood films- a sword and sandals epic starring George Clooney, an Esther Williams swimming film starring Scarlett Johansson, a stagey drawing room comedy directed by Ralph Fiennes and a Gene Kelly style musical clearly based on On The Town, starring Channing Tatum. Unfortunately this collection of pastiches doesn't come together into a great film. Josh Brolin's fixer character is boring and the kidnap plot is very dull (and relies on another Golden Era Hollywood in-joke that only cinephiles will get- even as one myself I was bored with that element).

Removing the kidnap plot and giving more screen-time to the other characters (Ralph Fiennes role is pretty much just a cameo) would have improved it considerably. I can see they were aiming for a similar style of comedy to Singin' in The Rain, which parodies the arrival of the talkies. Aldren Ehrenreich gives easily the best and funniest performance as a star of cowboy pictures forced to star in Ralph Fiennes' stiff mannered comedy; this shows what the film could have been but missed the opportunity.

Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me (1992)

The Eyes of Laura Palmer

Whilst the film is by no means a masterpiece, it has some great moments. The first 30 minutes, in which special agent Chet Desmond (Chris Isaak) and partner (Kiefer Surherland) investigate the murder of the first victim, Theresa Banks, are irrelevant to the rest of the film as that plot thread completely disappears. I believe the intention was to creare a series of films but as that didn't go ahead, skip the first 30 minutes (which are the closest to the tone of Twin Peaks in that they are surreal, some offbeat humour as well as the horror of the murder). David Bowie's cameo is miniscule.

The film really centres on the last week of Laura Palmer's life. Although the plot points aren't new to anyone who's watched Twin Peaks- they might even be used as flashbacks in the TV show were the content turned down- it is interesting to explore Laura's life through her eyes. In Twin Peaks the series, Laura is seen through different people's eyes so that they each have their 'version' of her, but here we get to see the nightmare, even darker than the show and the same level of surrealness. It's very Lynchian- i.e. Dreamlike/nightmarish with more nudity and violence than could ever have been shown on the TV show.

Moira Kelly is a good recast as Donna and it was great to see their friendship, perhaps the only real light in Laura's life.

As for Kyle MacLachlan as Dale Cooper, he's in it for a small amount in the first 30 minutes and then the final shot, so really the main draw is whether you want to see Laura's experience depicted on screen. Sheryl Lee as Laura gives a powerful performance that reflects the magnetic power Laura held over Twin Peaks residents.

Do not watch this film if you haven't watched the TV show as major plot points are revealed; if you have already watched the show, you won't get any more clues as to meaning. It's just a very powerful character study with some shocking moments even though we know who the killer is, and a woozy nightclub scene which feels dreamlike and nightmarish.

Serendipity (2001)

Morally bankrupt

I thought the premise sounded cute- rom-coms aren't exactly a realistic portrayal of love so why not use the premise of fate to make the coincidences make 'sense'?

Jon (John Cusack) has a typical 'meet cute' with a pretty woman Sara (Kate Beckingsale). Despite both of them having partners, after a bit of chatting and a fun evening Jon is ready to chuck his girlfriend. Sara is a big believer in fate so when she finally agrees to give her name and number, the piece of paper she's written it on blows away! So she plays some silly game about if they get on separate elevators and get off at the same floor it's some sign that they're meant to be together. She also writes her name and number in a book and John writes his on a five dollar note- if they're meant to be together, the items will find their way to the other person.

What the movie calls 'a few years later' but which actually turns out to be seven, both Jon and Sara have new serious partners. Jon's fiancee is barely even a character and Sara's fiance is a pretentious New Age musician that provides the laughs. But of course Jon and Sara are still hung up on each other so even though they are in serious relationships, decide to chuck it away, thus fitting in with their previous jerkiness of seven years ago. Jon is particularly creepy, coming off as an unhinged stalker at times.

The film exemplifies the worst values of romcoms- that you can fall in love without needing to know anything about a person and that you can get away with cheating and acting like a jerk because 'true love' wins out. Cusack and Beckinsale also lack the chemistry that would make you believe they were destined to end up with each other.

Sleepless in Seattle, whilst still having the stalker element, is a much better and nuanced portrayal of the same idea.

Cruel Summer (2021)

The Long Long Summer

The story looked intriguing- dorky Jeanette steps into the shoes of a popular girl whilst the popular girl Kate has been abducted and locked in a basement for months. Kate accuses Jeanette on national TV of seeing Kate and ignoring her cries for help, and now Jeanette is hated. Who is telling the truth?

It's an unteresting central gimmick- events play out on the same day but one year before the kidnapping, year of the kidnapping and one year after. The 90s are trendy so it's set in 1993, 1994, 1995. Admire the 90s fashion as it gets grungier in 1995. The 90s nostalgia is definitely a large part of the appeal.

It is however 90s filtered down to appeal to Gen Z, so instead of getting original songs of the period, we get overwrought breathy cover versions. The small town Texas is more nonchalent towards race than would actually have been the case for that era. It all kind of adds to the superficial gloss.

I found it easy to keep track of the years when Jeanette was there- 1993 is dorky Jeanette, 1994 is popular Jeanette and 1995 is moody Jeanette. The cinematography also becomes notably darker for 1995. A little harder to tell the difference between 1994 Kate and 1995 Kate.

Whilst the gimmick is appealing and the contrast between the years is interesting, there is a lot of filler and unnecessary characters to fill 10 episodes. Basically the mystery is whether Jeanette saw Kate or not; the programme adds twists so that our sympathies are meant to be changing but Jeanette always came across as a creep (which is why the ending was no surprise as her intentions had been clearly foreshadowed) and Kate was still a victim whichever way her story played.

Needlessly dragged out to fit ten episodes, there is a lot of filler and side characters. The final episode doesn't even make sense- the press report Martin's death as being the result of a shootout yet the autopsy would show it wasn't. Unless the police conspired to bury the truth but this is more of a story about who and why rather than what.

Having said that, the grooming was depicted very believably- not romanticised but not making the abuser an OTT villain. The scary thing is that he seems normal, even 'nice'; that is how he is able to win Kate over.

I don't know how they're going to do a Season 2 when everything has already been wrapped up.

New Year's Eve (2011)

One of the blandest films ever

I love an all-star cast and really enjoyed the ensemble approach that Richard Curtis pulled off so well in Love Actually. I also love a holiday film and unlike other reviewers, I think New Year's Eve makes a natural choice with the themes of second chances, old endings and new beginnings. However the reason why Love Actually worked so well is that they were based around characters, with some substantial storylines that could almost be their own film, some sentimental and others just light gags. New Year's Eve is like someone taking all of the gag storylines and rather than paying any thought to character, entirely focuses on the novelty of big stars. The connections feel very contrived and tacked on- whereas every character in Love Actually was linked with each other, only a few characters here have links to characters in other storylines.

Some of the storylines include a distasteful 'comedy' plotline about two couples competing to see who can give birth first on New Year's Eve so they can win a large sum of money; Jon Bon Jovi as a rockstar trying to make amends with his chef ex-girlfriend (played appallingly badly by Katherine Hiegl); a dowdy woman (Michelle Pfeiffer) who quits her job and then sets about fulfilling New Year's resolutions which delivery driver Paul (Zac Efron) helps her to complete in one night; and two neighbours, one a backing singer (Lea Michele) and one a grumpy hipster (Aston Kutcher) who inevitably fall in love whilst being stuck in an elevator. As far as stars and plotlines go, this is only the tip of the iceberg- however the downfall of this approach is that you have an abundance of lazy underwritten plotlines and a paucity of screentime for the actors. For example, you have Al Pacino who just spends the film in a hospital bed dying; no characterisation of story. Other than the couples at the hospital, which I found very irritating, I felt literally nothing for any of the characters (and got the clear impression the screenwriter felt nothing for them either). No anger, no sadness, no sympathy...they were just cardboard cut-outs. I rolled my eyes at the rip-off Love Actually monologues about the special magic of love and new year, although it was also embarrassing in Love Actually too.

Thankfully I saw the film on streaming services so I didn't have to pay- your enjoyment of the film will entirely depend on how much you like star-spotting and the guesswork of who is connected to who and how are they connected.

It reminds me of the Love Actually plotline in which aging rocker Billy Mack is releasing a novelty cover of Love Is All Around, changed to Christmas is All Around, in a sell-out bid for the Christmas no. 1. He knows full well the song is a dreadful lazy rip-off of the original, solely to cash in on the season.

The X Files (1998)

A long episode

I watched the TV series sporadically up to Season 4, but am now rewatching from the beginning and thoroughly enjoying (currently on Season 2).

Watching the film as a newcomer is a bit pointless- it's the equivalent of tuning into a TV show finale a few seasons in when you've not watched any of the previous episodes. The elements that the TV fans take for granted because they'd invested 5 years into the show- the bond between Mulder and Scully, the whole mythology/alien conspiracy (which I was never a fan of- aren't given sufficient explanation.

Some explanation of Mulder and Scully and the general show's premise is shoehorned in- Mulder is the maverick agent intent on exposing the government's cover-up of extra-terrestrial life and his work partner Scully is the scientific rationalist. The show swapped between Monster of The Week episodes (self-contained episodes that you really could just dip into as a casual viewer) and mythology arc (my least favourite- the whole government conspiracy angle), which require you to be a regular viewer in order to really get anything out of it.

To its credit, the film's tone fits into the main series- indeed, it could have been a double or triple episode and no one would have batted an eyelid. The characters behave consistently to the TV series. However you want a film to be more than a bigger budget TV episode.

The almost-kiss scene between Mulder and Scully felt odd (probably more of an in-joke for fans) as there's nothing in the film to support a romantic angle. Quite the opposite- they feel like old friends. For a non-viewer of the TV show, it's the old film cliche that a man and woman can't be friends, and for a viewer, the scene just didn't have the emotional build-up to justify a kiss.

The plot itself? Basically bees are transporting a killer alien virus for which there's not a proper vaccine yet, so naturally the government want to keep it hush-hush whilst Mulder and Scully (but particularly Mulder) want to expose it. It seems like a sci-fi show would lend itself well to a big budget but the lower budget TV episodes create much more menace.

If you've never watched the show before, you'd be better off watching a few episodes of the TV show instead of the film. If you watched the TV series but never got around to seeing the film- just prepare yourself for a long episode that whilst not dreadful falls short of the show's highs.

The Secret Garden (2020)

Too much magic

The film looks lush, the garden looks lovely and the house looks like a National Trust property. Too much emphasis has been put on making the garden 'magic'- it looks more like they're running around the Eden Project. The child actors all feel a little stage-school and some of the dialogue is a bit modern.

I did like the backstories and how Mary's impression that her mother didn't love her, when actually she was suffering from depression. A modern touch that contrasts nicely with Colin's belief that he is disabled. I agree with other reviewers that the letters implied Lord Craven was punishing Colin and trying to gaslight him into believing he was ill. It's quite clear that Craven became paranoid about his son's health as his wife was dying and wrapped him up in cotton wool.

I'm not sure how much appeal it will have to a child audience, or indeed an adult one (Colin Firth and Julie Walters are barely in it, although Firth gets some emotional moment). Better to create an original film rather than a needless adaptation.

Beyond Clueless (2014)

Like someone's school project

Beyond Clueless appears to be about American teen movies after Clueless up to 2006, but after ten minutes of watching, it becomes apparent that it's actually musings about the nature of the teenagers: they're conformist, struggling with sexuality...and that's about it. This naval gazing is merely illustrated with nearly 200 films (although as you would expect, most of these are simply shots of teenagers walking past the lockers, having sex, etc.).

As this era of teen films is completely looked over in film history (apart from a cursory nod to Mean Girls), it would have been interesting to hear about the making of the films, their influence, etc. Picking a few films to study in closer depth would have made more sense, rather than giving the synopsis of a handful of films (I know the genre is predictable but what's the point in giving spoilers if you have nothing interesting to say about them). It was nice that some obscurer films were mentioned and it wasn't just teen rom-cons (note- there's plenty of nudity, it is very much teens rather than tweens) but there's no actual study of these films as films, rather as a backdrop for the filmmaker Charlie Lyne's naval gazing.

Fairuza Balk's narration is supposed to sound artsy and intellectual but sounds more like she is bored out of her brains.

You'd be better off going to the Wiki page for this film, which lists all the films shown in Beyond Clueless, and picking out a couple to watch.

This filmmaker needs to go back to school to learn how to make a decent cinematic essay!

High Fidelity (2020)

Too much padding, too much missed potential

I've never seen the film or read the book so coming in with completely fresh eyes.

Firstly, the positives. There's no point in a remake unless you have a new angle, and reimagining the central character as a woman works great (and they kept the masculine name of the lead as a nice nod). Zoe Kravitz is very cool and laidback and despite the show being five hours of someone moping and dithering over past and present loves, she almost makes it worth watching. I like how there were a couple of gentle nods towards racism, such as a guy who sees Cherise (Rob's record store colleague)'s advert as a singer for the band, then when he realises Cherise is a large black woman, he walks out. Nicely done, without getting on a soapbox. There is no 'agenda' in this programme, as some 'anti-PC' (i.e, bigots), will presume because the lead is a woman of colour, but nothing wrong with subtly pointing out a few truths.

The two main problems of the show are firstly that it's quite clearly padded out. What might have made an enjoyable five-part TV show, or even just a film, is dragged out to 10 episodes- the premise itself doesn't lend itself to that long a running time (it is primarily someone moping about past loves and failing to commit to new ones). The secondary characters aren't fleshed out, though there was some potential with Cherise- however much you might enjoy the show, there isn't enough material for a second series and I feel the first series is wrapped up enough that people won't feel short-changed.

The second problem is that music should be the heart and soul of the series. Rob runs a record store and a brilliantly curated soundtrack (there's plenty of songs about love after all!) might have justified the running time. The music, as well as the actress, should tell the story. Whereas this feels more like the writer Googled a couple of obvious music choices and occasionally chucked in music conversations. Particularly with a female lead, there was a great chance to make a show which isn't just a romance. Because the soundtrack and the emotional content of the show don't marry up, it falls short of its potential.

I think Rob is a relatable character although am not too sure about the obvious attempts to emulate Fleabag (breaking the fourth wall, character who can occasionally be cruel- an anti-heroine). It feels unnecessary.

So 5 stars for a good lead actress but so much wasted potential in a show that certainly provided enough running time to fulfil it.

Making the Cut (2020)

An easy watch

I find it interesting in that we see the wider picture of the fashion industry- it's not just about the clothes, it's about selling yourself. Inevitably this mix of marketing challenge/fashion challenge will be offputting to some but I feel it's a neat twist. You can buy the winning piece of every challenge on Amazon, although the pieces didn't make me want to rush to buy them.

As for the judging, I don't mind Naomi Campbell- she's straight-talking and I think she has enough experience to judge harshly if needed. After all, this is what people do when they see a fashion catwalk. I find Heidi much worse in that she acts all cutesy towards the contestants and then rubbishes them to the other judges.

Saying that, I haven't always agreed with the judge's decisions. Esther's clothes feel dated to me, like they might have been fashionable in the early nineties, whereas Megan's could be bought at H and M or SimplyBe, and mainly consist of baggy tops in black and white patterns that I think is supposed to be their idea of plus size. Annoyingly plus-size assumes that the woman's weight is evenly distributed, rather than allowing for women who may have a flat chest but larger hips (and vice versa). A lot of women tend to put weight on in one specific area.

The parts I don't like are the cutesy Heidi/Tim filler sketches and the emphasis on the contestant being able to talk their way out of a firing when the judges have clearly made their mind up. The only way this would work is if you had the option that no one leaves that week (bit perhaps have multiple firings).

Just a few tweaks needed but please keep!

The House Bunny (2008)

The House Dummy

Basically this is a knock-off version of Legally Blonde, except here, our protagonist actually is a shallow bimbo, played by Anna Faris with a voice that sounds like a lobotomised Marilyn Monroe.

Our 'heroine' Shirley Darlingson (Anna Faris) has been kicked out of her spiritual home, the Playboy Mansion, and finding herself homeless, she stumbles upon a college house and becomes housemother to a failing sorority, complete with the tired clichés of hot-girl who wears glasses and is a bit geeky (Emma Stone, probably the most likeable character in this and shows her talent for romcoms), a hardcore feminist with lots of piercings, girl in a full body brace, and a lumbering manly one who even after the obligatory hot makeover, is basically exactly the same.

The problem with this film is that it can't decide whether it wants to be satirical or heart-warming, so it ends up being neither. Shelley is too stupid to function and Faris never shows any warmth for her character. The reason why Legally Blonde was so good is that Elle, despite looking like a 'bimbo' and having shallow interests, was actually intelligent. Here, the book is exactly as it is on the cover (both in Shelley's character and the film).

As a compromise, the 'outcasts' of the sorority house, after having been turned into tarty bimbos, decide that they must dress up a little bit so as not to be so freakish outcasts. Gone are such 'geeky' things like glasses and body braces and hooray, they can get boyfriends, their only aim in life! Wouldn't want to scare them off by implying any intelligence.

It's surprising to think this came out in 2008; it feels hopelessly dated in how it recycles its clichés, and purports to be supporting 'being yourself'- as long as you're a socially acceptable version of yourself.

Knives Out (2019)

Best enjoyed as a comedy rather than a mystery

Forget ingenious twists- this is more about the comedy. An eccentric crime writer (Christopher Plummer) appears to have killed himself but is there something untoward? Anyone of his equally eccentric self-centred family could have done it.

The details to watch out for, the important lines to remember for later are well signalled so it's more the comedy and anticipation for the pay off.

Daniel Craig as detective Benoit Blanc (basically Poirot's Southern cousin) is having a lot of fun in the role- nice to see the comedy that has been missing from his Bond films since Casino Royale. Maybe it'll open up some lighter comedy after he finishes his stint as Bond.

A Star Is Born (1976)

A hairy hoary remake

This is the second remake of A Star is Born (which was itself a remake of What Price Hollywood?)- a tale of a falling actor who falls for a young actress who he pushes to success as his own career irretrievably dies. I haven't seen the Lady Gaga version yet but it can't be worse than this soapy shlock, which is ironically more dated than the 1937 film (which I like by the way) and 1954 one.

The decision to move the story from Hollywood to the world of rock music was the right choice for the time period and certainly gives lots of scope for John Normal Howard (the James Mason role, played by Kris Kristofferson) to indulge his addictions. However it means that it loses the social commentary- the 1954 film was a critique of the Hollywood dream factory whereas in the 1976 one, Barbara Streisand (as Esther Hoffman) is already Barbara Streisand and refuses to change her name and awful style, thus removing a massive internal conflict for the character.

Scenes which were beautifully dramatic in the 1954 film become cringy in the 1976 one. In the 1954 film Norman watching Esther sing The Man That Got Away after the club has closed for the night, you see him fall in love over the course of the song and Esther's unawareness of how good she really is. In the 1976 one, Esther is performing in a lounge act called the Oreos (a woeful racist joke- she is the white one and the other two performers are black) singing a funky number 'Queen Bee'. It's just cheesy, as are all of their interactions apart from when John Norman watches Esther vocalise an acoustic version of the song which later becomes Evergreen.

Streisand can sing for sure but her acting is strained. This is basically a rehash of her superior performance in Funny Girl, right down to the quick-talking Jewish humour that grates even more than John Norman's dull rock numbers. Unlike Streisand, Kristofferson can't sing- or if he can, it's not in evidence here. The film never convinces us that John Norman was ever a big famous rock star, apart from just having him sing at a packed stadium. Implausibly, John Norman's rock audience cheer and whoop for Esther's easy listening belters.

Esther's hair is a character of its own, a sort of springy brillo-pad/afro thing, and her wardrobe is the stuff of horrors (unbelievably in the credits it says that the clothes are from Streisand's own wardrobe!). People talk about the eighties as being the decade that fashion forgot- the seventies is the decade that fashion tried to scrub out of its memory.

Most of the songs are forgettable, including all of Kristofferson's. Streisand sells some on her star power- Queen Bee and The Woman in The Moon- and Evergreen is a pleasant tune. Admittedly the 1954 film isn't full of toe-tappers but they hold up better than these songs. Evergreen is no match for the darkly beautiful torch song 'The Man That Got Away'.

There are essentially no other characters within this film so your enjoyment will depend on how much you want to see sentimentality, cheesy dialogue (brought bang up to date by a proliferation of swear words- the only 'f' word in the 1954 one was 'fame') and Streisand and Kristofferson. Way too long to be enjoyed as a camp classic.

Insatiable (2018)

Not entirely satisfactory but good on Netflix for having some guts

After school special, this isn't- well, not for the most parts. Its weaker moments are when the writers feel pushed into a corner to preach about body acceptance. If the show can sort out its uneven tone and fully commit to the dark morally ambivalent dramedy, it could reach a eight or nine (I'll give it a 9 to counteract some of the moral outrage from reviewers who just want a rant).

Controversial before anyone had even seen the show itself, the trailer shows its main character Patty (Debby Ryan wearing a fat suit) staring miserably into a mirror and now newly thin, vowing to wreak revenge on the people who bullied her. People were in uproar at the fat-shaming and then found even more to be in uproar about when they watched the show.

NOTE: From now on, there may well be spoilers.

Patty is roped into doing pageants by Bob Armstrong (Dallas Roberts, who need to turn down the camp), a lawyer who's learnt flair and razzle dazzle from the courtroom. Inspired by the many Drew Barrymore films she watches, Patty turns Long Island Lolita and tries to wreck Bob's marriage. The show makes it quite clear that Bob is not a sexual predator so no worries there.

After about four episodes in, the Lolita plot is sidelined and it's more about satirising pageants and the Southern hospitality of Bob's wife Coralee (Alyssa Milano), who harbours a burning desire for her hunky neighbour Bob Barnard. A mix of Desparate Housewives and a teen comedy.

Think of Insatiable more as a twisted fantasy- quite obviously you can't become skinny and toned from simply having your jaw wired shut for three months and Patty would obviously have twigged Bob as not being straight, partly because of the pageant thing (stereotype as that is) but also because Dallas Roberts plays the character as far too camp- it's not quite clear whether this is meant to be his personality or his sexuality.

I thought the finale was a brilliant dark pinnacle that brought the characterisation of Patty and Bob back on track. Patty and Bob are both linked by former eating disorders but also obsessive personalities.

Insatiable should get a Series 2- hopefully by which time the writers will commit more fully to the dark comedy and leave identity politics for another show.

It would be good to see some shows with an overweight protagonist (notably shows make their characters either stick thin or obese) who just gets on with things and doesn't have to be punished- but that's a separate issue.

The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990)

Boredom of the Vanities

It would be apt to quote from the film itself- one of the characters Sir Gerald Moore (Robert Stephens, great comic value even if he's barely in it) says: 'In my house, when a turd appears, we throw it out. We dispose of it. We flush it away. We don't put it on the table and call it caviar'

This film is a stinker. It starts off seeming like it will be an enjoyable comedy of manners amongst the narcissistic rich (the yuppie lifestyle) but instead is a crushing bore with a plot that has as much depth as a CSI episode.

Tom Hanks is miscast as Sherman McCoy- he looks like his character in Big, a boy pretending to be a grown-up. It was initially interesting to see him act against type but because the filmmakers wanted him to use the Tom Hanks charm in order to smooth the sharp edges of Tom Wolfe's novel, it never pays off. Sherman is unlikeable and weak-willed but in no way the 'master of the universe' that he dubs himself, more like a weedy kid.

Melanie Griffiths does a good job of playing his mistress, dumb blonde Maria, but the character is entirely unlikeable (this is a pretty bad film as far as female parts go- there's nothing for either her or Kim Cattrell as Sherman's wife to work with), a whiny Southern gal.

The plot is that Sherman and Maria take a wrong turn and end up in the Bronx, where Maria accidentally runs down a young black teenager. Uproar in the community ensues (very quiet uproar as the black characters are kept firmly in the background) and opportunistic journalist Peter Fallow (Bruce Willis, again doing nothing remarkable with his role) sees a chance for a good story.

There's lots of scenes where people are just standing around having not very interesting conversations- a sure fire way to kill a film with a running time of two hours. Dialogue-heavy films can be great- see 12 Angry Men- but it's just dull. Morgan Freeman as Judge Leonard White has a 'rousing' speech that attempts to be a poor imitation of Alfieri/John Proctor/Portia.

The novel would be much better serviced by a TV adaptation so we actually get to know the large cast of characters and they can actually explore the theme rather than just telling us.

If you feel guilty watching it because you're having a bad time, take solace in that the cast and crew all hated it as well.

Peyton Place (1957)

What goes on behind doors...

(Potential spoiler in fourth paragraph)

Based on the lurid bestseller of its time by Grace Metalious, Peyton Place is a fifties melodrama whose attitude to sex was franker than other films of this time (though it looks very tame now), in which characters wouldn't even mutter the word.

Constance MacKenzie (Lara Turner) disapproves of her daughter Allison (Diane Varsi) having any sort of romance because as it is later revealed, Constance has skeletons in her closet. This is nothing compared to the home life of Allison's best friend Selena Cross (Hope Lange), who lives in fear of her abusive alcoholic stepfather Lucas (Arthur Kennedy).

Lana Turner feels miscast, with the focus on her as a star, rather than Allison, who is more of a main character. The headmaster who tries to court her, played by Lee Phillips, is bland and forgettable. Whilst Hope Lange is physically miscast as Selena, who in the novel is described as dark and gyspy like, she acts the part well. The trouble is that she looks too similar to Allison- there's a reason why in the novel the girls look so physically different.

Arthur Kennedy is suitably vile as leering Lucas and Russ Tamblyn (better known for his role in West Side Story) is sweet as Allison's sweetheart, Norman. The rape scene is troubling, although god knows why there's the sound of a train in the background.

It took me a while to realise that this was set in the forties- every outfit and hairstyle looks straight out of the year it was set in (which isn't uncommon for films but the forties is very different fashion-wise from the forties).

It is an interesting teen/women's film from yesteryear but not on a par with Imitation of Life, which also deals with controversial subjects but actually explores them rather than simply presenting them. Culturally very significant as the archetype of small-town secrets and scandal (American Beauty owes a debt to it, amongst many other films).

Dynasty (2017)

Woke Dynasty

This is very much a 21st century woke Dynasty. The original had more WASPS than a summer picnic but here we have different races. The Colby family are black and Krystal and her nephew Sammy Jo is Venezualan.

In general, the whole show is twenty-first century attitudes. Fallon (Elizabeth Gillies) is a shrewd businesswoman rather than the little girl lost of the original Dynasty. Krystal loves and is (for the most part) loyal to her husband but she is not the pure and angelic Krystle of the original series. Stephen is also out and proud- his father is concerned with Stephen's charitable do-gooding rather than his sexuality.

I have no issue with the changes for the most part. Simply transposing the original would not have worked- social attitudes have changed too much. In the original, Stephen being gay was treated as incredibly shocking whereas no one would bat an eye now. I also really enjoy the change of Sammy Jo from female to male- no longer a trampy wife but fun-loving casual boyfriend.

The only issue I have is with the Colby family. TV has a bit of an issue with writing in black characters but making them underwritten and boring. Even when Jeff and Monica are trying to be sneaky, they're still dull as ditchwater hangers-on to the Carringtons. This isn't portraying ethnic balance; this is tokenism and the actors deserve better.

Grant Show might be suitably silver-foxish (much more so than original Blake!) but his performance is so wooden that he could be replaced by a tree and the tree would outact him. I don't like how villainous and shady he is either- it feels like a lazy way to make the female characters stand out.

Gillies is the most spirited cast member, bringing Alexis's feistiness and manipulation to the role of Fallon. I have not yet watched up to the point where Alexis comes in but she might feel redundant.

The role of Claudia is completely wasted, with Claudia being a two-dimensional crazy woman, whereas in the original she was interesting and sympathetic.

The original series was very influential- in some respects we already have a modern version of Dynasty in the form of the excellent Empire.

All in all, it's a watchable, if forgettable version of a camp classic.

The Square (2017)

The Hypocrisy of Art

Part art-world satire, part absurdist comedy and part social-commentary, watching The Square is like wandering around an art gallery. Anyone who's been to an art gallery will recognise the stillness and slow pace (which accounts for the two-and-a-half hour running time) but despite this, there are lots of comic moments, including an ill-advised advertising campaign and the live performance art seen on the film's poster.

The film is really hinged on Stockholm's X-Royal Gallery's lead curator, Christian Nielsen (Klaes Bang), who fobs off American reporter Anne (Elizabeth Moss) when she probes into the nonsensical art-speak on his website. It's a great moment of culture clash as Anne concedes to his European philosophising which is professional BS-ing.

Christian's social apathy is reflected by the public, as crowds of people wander past street beggars, glued to their smartphones. Initially the social commentary is more under the radar with the focus on comedy but near the end of the film, it's soapbox territory. Your mileage on that may vary- is writer/director Ruben Ostlund mouthing off about the problem of homelessness or is it a study of middle class guilt? I would say it's the latter- Christian is only struck by small moments of generosity when he's doing well for himself. Besides, unless you are an artist who is actively engaged in social work, you can hardly make a film criticising art's exploitation of social deprivation unless you are a massive hypocrite.

The film's title refers to the X-Royal gallery's latest art installation- a lit-up outline of a square in the gallery's courtyard, with a plaque that says within the space of this square, everyone has equal rights. Is it genuinely thought-provoking or is it merely paying lip-service? Though the film is satirical, it does make you think about the point of art.

Though Dominic West gets equal billing with Elisabeth Moss, his is only really a cameo, as the artist of one of the gallery's exhibitions 'Mirrors and Piles of Gravel'. Sporting a pair of horrid yellow sunglasses that bring to mind 90's Britpop, he is the typical pretentious artist.

Without wishing to give more away, the comedy ranges from satirical to black comedy to absurdist comedy. One particular bit of gross-out comedy means that you might wish to leave the children/grandparents at home, unless you enjoy the awkwardness.

One final note- despite the majority of the film being in Swedish, there are a couple of scenes in English, so that should open it out to audiences who hate reading subtitles.

Girlboss (2017)

Millenial sass pit

Adulthood is where dreams go to die, bankruptcy is where companies go to die. It's unfortunate that whilst this series fanatically praises Nasty Gal founder Sophia Amuroso (here, she is called Sophia Marlowe)as a business success, in life Amuroso has stepped down as CEO and the company is bankrupt.

Sass alone does not make success but fictional Sophia seems to get by simply on being a sassy millenial. She starts the series as a twenty-three year old shoplifting drifter, who is stuck in teenager mood (where she basically remains throughout the whole series)and ends up a girlboss (the kind of patronising term you might use on marketing a Barbie doll).

Though the first three or four episodes are unbearably smug, Britt Robertson does a good job as little-girl-lost Sophia, seller of vintage fashion. Ellie Reed is fine enough as Sophia's hanger-on/best buddy Annie.

It's not so much the acting that's the problem as the whole concept being flawed. It's free publicity for the Nasty Gal business and no amount of dramatic license will disguise the fact that this is a six and a half hour commercial.

The reality is sanitised in the show. For starters, there is whitewashing (Sophia Amuroso is of Greek, Italian and Portuguese descent). Secondly, in this version Sophia is still in contact with her dad, with a relationship no more strained than any young daughter. When we know that he can bail her out financially, her decision to shoplift is bratty rebellion rather than financial problems.

The material was pretty thin anyway so unsurprisingly it did not get a second season.

Game-On (1995)

Game for a laugh

Game On was devised by Bernadette Davis and Andrew Davies. Davies is mostly famous for his costume dramas, such as Pride and Prejudice) and as time has gone on, Game On is very much a historical sitcom as it rides the wave of the nineties.

The set-up is three friends living in a London flat. Landlord Matthew (Ben Chaplin, then Neil Stuke) is a neurotic agoraphobic who nevertheless thinks he's a hard man; his best friend sex-starved Martin (Matthew Cottle) is basically his lackey; and nympho Mandy (Samantha Janus), who will sleep with anyone except Martin and Matthew and despite her intelligence flits from temp job to temp job.

The first series is a little darker and a bit more subversive as Matthew's rampant sexism, perversions and occasional casual racism are on display. Chaplin is a better actor than Stuke and his charm and good looks make it more interesting, as on the surface you'd expect Matthew to be doing pretty well in life. A couple of the highlights of the series involve Matthew's cross-dressing and his brief venture playing in a band who lives in the flat upstairs.

The addition of Neil Stuke softened the darkness of the comedy. Stuke is more likable and relatable in the role- a more traditional sitcom choice- but had Chaplin had more time in the role, he would have made it iconic. He has that coolness that Stuke couldn't bring.

I really liked Samantha Janus in the role of Mandy; not simply eye candy for the boys, she is very funny as she handles her string of jobs and men.

Martin is the weakest character. It's not particularly the fault of actor Matthew Cottle but the writing for the character is very one-note. The introduction of his girlfriend Claire (Tracy Keating) makes him even more annoying.

By Series 3, the show ended up in a very different place from the first series with some emotional backstories for some of the characters (in addition to the death of Matthew's parents, which is mentioned throughout the show). This helped diffuse the sameyness that had crept in.

Similar to Men Behaving Badly in the way that it showed 90's laddishness and sexual permissiveness, Game On had some very funny moments and some subversively dark moments but was not consistently funny and ultimately did not lead up to its promise.

Restless (2012)

You will be restless with boredom

NOTE: The spoiler is in the fourth paragraph.

It's not that Restless is badly acted- just that a story about a WW2 spy should be a lot more fun than this two-parter TV movie, totalling three hours.

There are two timelines: the present day, which is the seventies, and the early forties. In the 'present day', Ruth Gilmartin (Michelle Dockery) is told by her mother Sally (Charlotte Rampling) that she is not Sally but instead is Eva Delectorskaya, a former British spy during WW2. In the forties, Eva (Hayley Atwell) is recruited by charismatic spymaster Lucas Romer (Rufus Sewell) who naturally she ends up falling in love with.

Whilst real life espionage is probably not like a Bond movie and is closer to the mundane work here, full of innocent code phrases and staring out of a window for hours spying on someone, it makes the pace drag. The espionage becomes more exciting in Episode 2 but it's not really worth sitting through Episode 1, which is a bit of a waste of time unless you want to see the romancing of Lucas and Eva.

Were this a normal length TV movie, that would have helped considerably as there is a lot of filler here. It also means that the viewer might be more forgiving of the various clichés- it's blindingly obvious that Lucas is going to seduce Eva and that he will be a traitor. The fact that this does not occur to her at all makes Eva come across as stupid. Rather than focusing on her espionage skills, she comes across more like an ordinary woman motivated by love.

There are hints in the second episode of some politically relevant parallels with WW2 in the seventies but this is not explored. Restless is too superficial to be interesting but not superficial enough to enjoy as a pulpy spy story. I am aware that it is based on a novel by William Boyd but the filmmakers needed to either make it intellectual or entertainment and they did neither.

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004)

The pitfalls of CGI

Although it purports to be a homage to thirties adventure serials, Sky Captain and The World of Tomorrow is strangely cold. The film was entirely computer generated and as a result, it feels robotic. The actors do not interact convincingly with the environment; the marrying of CGI with reality is what makes CGI effective.

Unfortunately the visuals aren't even particularly appealing. The soft focus effect is overdone and makes the actors look very fuzzy. Jude Law is obscured in shadow so much that we hardly ever see his face. In concept it's a nice idea but it was just taken to too much of an extreme. Some of the robots Sky Captain (Jude Law) battles are cool, such as the robots with wavy arms, but others are risible (the planes that flap their wings like birds). The film is only ten years old but already it feels dated. The short that the film is based on is actually visually accomplished; it was a bad idea not to release the film in black and white. Instead the film was shot in black and white and then like in colourised films of the past, layers of colour were added.

There is a faint story: reporter Polly Perkins (Gwyneth Paltrow) teams up with old flame Sky Captain (Jude Law) to solve the mystery of famous scientists that are disappearing. Can they defeat evil German Dr Totenkopf (Laurence Olivier in hologram form)? And can Polly cope with Sky Captain's past love affair with Captain Franky Cook (Angelina Jolie, looking very odd and masculine)? All the CGI in the world cannot compensate for a weak story, which this unfortunately is. It's thin but the film spreads it even thinner. Essentially it's just Law and Paltrow running around in front of a blue screen, feigning fear at various robots that they can't see. There is the odd moment of humour- Omid Djalili is very funny in a cameo role as a friend of Sky Captain's and Angelina Jolie's 'British' accent that sounds Australian is certainly something to see. To be fair to Jolie, she adds some campness; however the film takes itself too seriously to allow for campness.

I wanted to like the film because I love many similar films to this: Rocketeer, Dark City, Captain America. Dark City is particularly similar- a sci-fi film that has a strong thirties feel but is not literally set in the thirties (there's enough anachronisms in Sky Captain to make it a very alternative thirties). Whilst that film is not perfect, it has much more flair and imagination than Sky Captain does, without needing a blue screen for every shot.

If entirely computer-generated films really are the world of tomorrow, it's a sad day.