frukuk's reviews

Two episodes in and I'm not loving this Alien.

The first episode was okay. But the second episode dragged. It's certainly not looking promising for the rest of this (first?) season.

There seem to have been so many very positive reviews of this from professional reviewers. I really don't understand what they saw in it. Perhaps they feel obliged to put the most positive spin they can on things. But what I really wanted to know was whether it was worth me spending my money on a month or two of Disney+ so that I could stream this.

The best part of the first two episodes is when they riff on children not being able to keep a secret. Yes, that's the best bit.

Wish I hadn't shelled out for Disney+ in order to watch this drivel.

Is that it?

There's a very simple and uninteresting idea at the heart of this. And it's not even told in an interesting way. So please don't waste your time watching it.

I was expecting at least some coverage of public response to the "miracle birth", but there was nothing to support the assertion that: "A miracle birth unravels a marriage and rocks the very foundation of humankind."

Rather than that, we're left to read a few emails over the shoulder of Joe, played by Nicholas Pinnock. And that's it. The End.

Such a very simple idea and such poor storytelling. Perhaps that explains why it was buried on Channel 4 in the UK.

I abandoned this after watching the first 3 episodes. So little happened; so much was flashback; nothing drew me in.

After 3 hours of meandering, I'm not sure what the story is here. As a murder investigation -- or series of murder investigations if you include the flashbacks -- it is rather dull with no surprises.

I don't know if Clive Owen is simply miscast or whether his part is so very poorly written, but I just couldn't take him seriously as "reclusive billionaire" Andy Ronson. And Harris Dickinson gave a rather wet performance as Bill "Banksy" Farrah.

I found Brit Marling's earlier series, The OA (2016-2019) to be reasonably interesting. But this was definitely a backward step for her as a creator/writer. And she really ought not to cast herself in her own productions.

I enjoyed the 4 hour ride, but the destination felt like a cop out.

The idea of a contract signed by someone who shortly thereafter dies, suggests a possible identity for the mysterious "Consultant".

The inclusion of a character who is becoming a Catholic to please his fiancee, suggest a religious undercurrent.

Difficulty in climbing stairs suggests strange "feet".

I enjoyed the explanation as to the Consultant's difficulty with stairs.

But I couldn't buy the ease with which he persuaded Sang to sign the contract he offers him. Even if Sang doesn't initially fully understand what the Consultant is offering, he could at least protest when he eventually does understand.

So, a reasonably enjoyable ride, as long as you're comfortable with the imperfections and don't mind an unsatisfactory ending.

A surprisingly enjoyable film, given the relatively low ratings it's received on here.

Liam Neeson gives a fine performance as Alex Lewis, the hitman who is beginning to suffer the symptoms of Alzheimer's.

It's ironic that Guy Pearce, who plays FBI agent Vincent Serra is known for Memento (2000), because it feels like this film could have been called "Memento mori". Alex Lewis decides to take a stand, in part at least, because he knows he is slipping away towards a living death as his disease progresses. (I don't know if Alex Lewis writing things on his arm is a nod to the tattoos that Guy Pearce's character sported in Memento.)

This film is definitely recommended. It starts with an excellent and unflashy screenplay, has Liam Neeson at close to his best and is very well made. Do give it a try.

This is so slow moving. It only really gets interesting from about 1 hour in, when it seems to pick up pace. (Then It slows down again.)

At first I thought it was essentially a romantic comedy, but it turned out not to be.

There's plenty of blood and, to a lesser extent, gore, but it doesn't seem like it is essentially a comedy horror.

So what is it all about? I suppose it may be about teenagers trying to make sense of the world and finding that there are no easy answers.

But is it worth watching? While skipping the first 55 minutes or so means you miss some "backstory", I'd suggest starting there so you invest no more than 40 minutes of your time in this very slight film.

I found Rose Matafeo quite believable as Zoe and in no way as irritating as some other reviewers found her to be.

But this film doesn't have very much of interest to say about becoming a parent. And it can't quite decide if it wants to take things seriously or wants to provide some weak humour. (The jokes about her father, the gynaecologist, were unfortunately simply a collection of dad jokes.)

So, while it's not awful, it's certainly not original. It's OK if you are desperate for something to watch, but definitely not worth seeking out. (Nothing more to add, but I'm required to type some more characters.)

What is it with Jemaine Clement as Colin Keith Threadener? He's the spitting image of David Walliams as Andy in the British TV series "Little Britain".

And Matt Berry of "Toast of London" fame further hints at the British connection.

Like "Little Britain", this seems to want to present a menagerie of "interesting" characters. Unfortunately, while "Little Britain" succeeds in this respect, "An Evening with Beverly Luff" fails miserably. Not only are the characters boring cliches, but there is no story of any real substance.

You've got to wonder how something this threadbare got made. (It seems to have benefited from some Film 4 funding from the UK.)

The crime remains unsolved.

It is clear that there is misogyny all about, but do we need this very slight film to remind us?

There is so little to the central story of a young woman who is murdered horrifically, that I assume this film is all about the philosophising that is hung off its insubstantial core.

There's an officer who wanted to teach French rather than (try to) solve crimes. He was almost a caricature.

The victim was attracted to "bad boys" (French for "bad boys") and I guess this film is saying that that fact is really irrelevant. If she only chose violent partners, would that mean that she had signed up to any amount of violence they decided to mete out?

There's just too little of anything here to make this film worth watching.

Perhaps I'm disappointed in this film because I was expecting it to be more twisty? Or perhaps because I found it hard to take Cooper, played by Josh Hartnett, seriously?

I was watching this wondering if Cooper really was going to turn out to be The Butcher or if perhaps he was someone who was seeking revenge on The Butcher and wanted to find him before the authorities did.

I know some of the goofing around by Cooper was because he was a dad with his daughter and was trying to be (un)cool, but at other times it just felt like Josh Hartnett couldn't bring himself to portray Cooper as a serious person. (Of course, the screenplay and/or direction may well be at fault here.)

As for the ending, I was just reminded of Michael Myers, and not in a good way.

The second season is enjoyable and Tom Hughes gives a perfect performance as psychiatric registrar James Ford. The "mystery" which is gradually revealed is nothing novel, but the characters and performances make this worth watching.

The first season, however, has no redeeming qualities. The "mystery" which Dr. Lucinda Edwards (played by Helen Behan) uncovers is pretty implausible. Some of the villainous characters behave so ridiculously that it is hard to take things seriously.

Given the poor first season, it's surprising that this got a second season, but I'm glad it did. So, as long as you're not looking for a novel "mystery", you should find the second season reasonably entertaining.

Why choose someone with a strong Northern Irish accent, to play an English woman?

It's clear that Bronagh Gallagher is having to commit most of her mental bandwidth to pronouncing words in a very mannered way. It's exceptionally distracting.

This probably isn't intended to be compared to Silent Witness (which also stars Emilia Fox), but it is several orders of magnitude worse.

While it looks good and I assume a moderate amount of money was spent on the production, little money seems to have been spent on the flaccid script. Things are massively decompressed. This could all have been over in an hour, but it's stretched out, I think on the basis that you're supposed to be looking at and enjoying the beautiful scenery. I'd much prefer to be able to enjoy a nice tight script.

It would be nice to have had some characters to care about and some thought-provoking content. But I found watching this to be a boring experience, so much so that I stole away to the Wikipedia page to read the remainder of the plot.

If this film is essentially about our addiction to spectacle, then I'm not convinced that's a topic that is worth making a film about. And even if it were, this film does a poor job of making an exploration of the topic either compelling or entertaining.

I did enjoy Jordan Peele's Get Out (2017), but thought his Us (2019) was a very poorly executed idea. This film continues his rapid descent.

Maggie O'Neill, who plays Kathy, is just wonderful in this. Her performance is pitch perfect.

Watching this again in 2025, having first seen it when it was broadcast in 1989, what struck me most about it is that it feels much more like Kathy's story than it does Tom. Less of "a middle-aged married man having an obsessive affair with a younger, married woman" and more "a dissatisfied young, married woman, trying to take back control of her life."

I did struggle with Tom's decision making as this drew to a conclusion. But the very ending is not disappointing and plays in to my feeling that really, this has been Kathy's story all along.

Oh dear. I don't expect much from this very soft soap, but the very blatant misdirection in this episode was beyond irritating.

I'd suggest that, if you don't identify the perpetrator very early on, you need to cut up your Amateur Detective Society membership card.

The only positive is Zahra Ahmadi's performance as DS Esther Williams. The way her character is being developed is much more interesting than anything else here. Don't know if Zahra Ahmadi is the most capable actor, but she certainly does a great job of playing DS Esther Williams. (Hopefully DI Humphrey Goodman and Martha Lloyd will retire and this can become a vehicle for DS Esther Williams.)

A very slight film, with a weak screenplay, that seems to do no more than ask the question; "When in an unfamiliar situation, who should you trust?"

It's described as a "darkly comic, character-driven thriller", but it is dialogue heavy and action light and feels much more plot-driven.

Looking back at the actions of the characters, only Flo's behaviour seemed to make sense with the benefit of hindsight.

This film might make you think, "What would I do if I were in the same position as Ewan and Silke?" But that is little reward for spending 90 minutes of your time watching such a poorly written film.

I gave up on this after the first episode (an hour of filler-not-thriller and a very poor cliffhanger ending).

When I saw this new adaptation had been released, I went back and listened to the BBC Radio audio dramatisation (total length: 2 hours) that was first broadcast in 2010. I can confirm that was a good adaptation, despite a fair amount of over-emoting from Marcia Warren as Lady Tresselian.

I really don't understand why this BBC TV adaptation has veered so far from the BBC Radio adaptation and, presumably, from Agatha Christie's source novel. The idea that Treeves is not a judge but a barrister who represented Nevile Strange, means much would need to be rewritten. The original works perfectly and provides much misdirection. Why bother shaking things up? Simply so you can get paid for a 3 hour adaptation? (Give it a miss and try listening to the BBC Radio adaptation instead.)

Better than I was expecting -- given it had an average rating of 5.4 out of 10 when I watched it -- but there was too little there to make it a must see.

I'd suggest there were a couple of key flaws.

First, so much of this seems to hinge on the central concept expounded in "The Infernal Machine", the one and only book written by Bruce Cogburn. And yet, when that concept is explained, I struggled to understand how someone fleshed it out to produce a novel rather than simply a short story.

Second, the precise motivation of Bruce Cogburn's "tormenter" wasn't clear to me, nor was it clear how that person had the financial resources necessary to inflict such torment.

Still, I enjoyed it. And you might if you don't think too much about the flaws.

What a horrible experience, watching this was. So much nastiness and so few sympathetic characters; a run-of-the-mill and unsubtle story; an ending that is telegraphed well in advance.

Watching this nasty, brutish and very long film is a horribly depressing experience. It reminds me of the quote from George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four: "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- forever."

This dispiritingly bleak film needs to be consigned to the vaults and never shown again. It has no redeeming features or qualities. Please don't waste your time on it.

I stumbled across the original film, Becky (2020), on a free streaming service in the UK and was surprised that it was so well made and entertaining. I enjoyed the original film so much that I bought this sequel on Blu-ray (from Germany, since a UK version wasn't available). But this sequel is so bland and slow paced. It's far, far worse than the original.

There's no real sense of danger or peril. Things trundle along and some people get killed. The concluding scene makes it feel like the whole purpose of this sequel was to set up a further sequel -- "Becky 3 - The Key To It All" perhaps. We might as well have gone straight to "Becky 3".

Seann William Scott is very low energy as Darryl. I don't know if that is down to poor direction or the poor script. He's so unmenacing that he has to tell a story to demonstrate how ruthless he was on one occasion in the past.

Please do watch the original if you haven't seen it, but this sequel should be given a very wide berth.

Staz Nair fails to command the screen as DCI Harry Virdee, lacking both intensity and emotional depth in this bland BBC crime drama. His portrayal is an unfortunate balance of absentmindedness and misdirected focus -- fire the focus puller -- making Virdee a standout character for all the wrong reasons.

From low-octane chases through Bradford's streets to louder, hair-pulling moments as family members grapple with each other, Nair delivers a mind-numbingly boring performance. His miniscule screen presence and emotional lack of range make Virdee not even a detective, and definitely not a man fighting battles on multiple fronts.

With a box-ticking script and sophomoric storytelling, Virdee is a do-not-watch, not least as a result of Nair's monotone and single-layered performance. If this is the start of a franchise, the BBC are doomed!

(This had to be said, in the interests of balance.)

A nicely convoluted story. Lots of suspects. But spoiled.

I was drawn to this by the casting of Shelley Conn. But I can do without the sight of her getting it on with the very crumpled Sven Nordin. Rather like watching Marilyn Monroe get it on with Bernard Bresslaw.

And the crutch acting! If you're using a single crutch and you're able to walk up stairs, then you really don't need the crutch. He seems to need it one minute and not the next. He limps one minute and the next he is able to chase a thief. He then uses the light aluminium(?) crutch as a weapon, as if it had the weight of a baseball bat.

(This is a copy of my review of ep09 -- the first part of this two-parter.)

I haven't been a regular watcher of Silent Witness over the years. I watched for a few years at the beginning and then got fed up with the characters. I started watching again last year (s27) and have really been enjoying this year's s28. And this two-parter is absolutely one of my favourite stories.

I hope it's not a spoiler to say that this story is so tragic and sad. But if I don't mention the "perfect" tragedy and sadness, then I can't reveal what I particularly like about it.

The underlying "condition" covered in this story is heartbreaking. It's so well acted, not least by Seosaimhin Hennelly as the young girl Dawn. The characters are given space to develop and reveal themselves at a perfect pace. Wonderful!

I haven't been a regular watcher of Silent Witness over the years. I watched for a few years at the beginning and then got fed up with the characters. I started watching again last year (s27) and have really been enjoying this year's s28. And this two-parter is absolutely one of my favourite stories.

I hope it's not a spoiler to say that this story is so tragic and sad. But if I don't mention the "perfect" tragedy and sadness, then I can't reveal what I particularly like about it.

The underlying "condition" covered in this story is heartbreaking. It's so well acted, not least by Seosaimhin Hennelly as the young girl Dawn. The characters are given space to develop and reveal themselves at a perfect pace. Wonderful!