NikolaiDante Reviews

Doctor Who: Flux: Chapter Six - The Vanquishers (2021) Season 13, Episode 6

Despair beyond belief

[4/10 · 5 December 2021]

I've loved Dr Who since I was a kid (I'm 53) and have always accepted there are going to be awesome stories and ones that are going to plumb the depths.

However, I've never had to endure the issue of a whole series being just ... terrible.

I could go on at length but what the point?

The whole story of the flux is nonsensical, it has no logic, no flow, no coherence.

What was the point of Swarm & Azure? Big build up and then wiped out in a second with no reason.

What was the point of Vincent & Bel? They ran around a lot but had little impact on the story.

What was the point of Grand Serpent? Great character, but what effect did he have?

In all Chris Chibnall collected a huge number of elements, threw them in a big pot and got ... a mess.

I've put up with a lot of rubbish in the Whoniverse and thought the episode "Kill the Moon" ( Capalidi) was the absolute worst but then came The Flux.

You thought Moffat was getting bad but Chibnall tops it all.

Russell T Davis cannot come back too soon.

I feel sorry that Jodie has to go out on this pile of ... of ...

This feels like we have hit the quality of script that Sylvestor McCoy had to endure before Dr Who was cancelled in 1987.

Please can it stop? I can't bear to see my favourite SciFi series of ALL time go down the drain in this manner.

David Attenborough: A Life on Our Planet (2020 TV Movie)

Everyone on the Planet should see this. Especially world leaders.

[10/10 · 28 September 2020]

David Attenborough has been a part of my life since I first started watching nature programmes when I was a very little boy (I was born 1968)

In nearly 70 years of film making he has pretty much visited every place possible on the planet and travelled millions (literally) of miles to do so.

He has never failed to awe and wow us with the wonders of the planet.

So when SIr David, at the age of 94, makes a new, one off film with the strapline "My witness statement", you have to sit up and take notice.

I decided to see this on it's release date in the cinema, to really immerse myself in the wonders of the world on a big screen.

The film opens with Sir David in the ruins of Chernobyl where he shows the results of ONE stupid, mammoth mistake and then leads into the state of the world today.

SIr David takes you on a journey through his life, showing population levels, CO2 levels and %age of the planet still classed as WILD each time. He presents the facts in his warm caring style but showing a picture of how bad things have got.

STATISTIC : Of all the animal biomass on earth, 60% is estimated to be human livestock, 36% humans and a mere 4% for everything else.

The narration pauses with about 30s of silence and the look on his face says everthing - no acting just a man looking back over the years - brought a lump to my throat.

But after all the doom and gloom he says "This is my witness statement. But it doesn't end there, we can fix this and I'll tell you how"

Fo the second part he talks about all the ways we can, as a world and a species, start to fix things and put them right. But these are not just pie-in-the-sky methods, he talks and shows about how positive change is ALREADY happening. Watch for the examples from the Netherlands & Costa Rica.

He talks about the human population peaking and how we can make this happen sooner by actually IMPROVING people's lives - no draconian fertility laws, just the course of nature.

SO he ends on a positive note - he really believes we can fix this and based on the fact Costa Rica DOUBLED its jungle and forest cover after mass deforestation in just 25 years and when you see how nature has reclaimed Chernobyl it will hearten you too.

The fixes don't require us to deny ourselves but to manage things BETTER and in fact if we do things BETTER we will have even more.

Now we just have to get our politicians, especially the deniers, to wake up and DO SOMETHING.

I honestly believe that anyone who gives this show a negative or neutral review or rating (under 6) either has completely missed the point OR is a denier and there is no hope for them at the moment.

Final thought - Many scientists have said that the lost of biodiversity on the planet at the moment is so great and so rapid that it has to be classed at the 6th Great Extinction Event the planet has suffered in the 4.5 billion year history. Whatever happens, life WILL flourish again, but the question will be, "Will humans be part of it or will we go the way of the dinosaurs?"

Doctor Who: Orphan 55 (2020) Season 12, Episode 3

Worst Rated Episode EVER in the Modern Doctor Who Era

[3/10 · 17 January 2020]

I'm a huge Dr Who fan and I've been struggling with Jodie as the Doctor since last season and it's not because of the Doctor being a woman (sex change in a Timelord has been around for years - Big Finish started it) or Jodie herself - I like her acting.

The problem is this Doctor feels distant.

All the other Doctors (even cranky old Capaldi & Hartnell) made you want to care about them, made you want to feel like they are part of YOUR family. In the modern era Smith & Tennant did this wonderfully. Doctor 13 is not.

There is something missing and I can't quite point my finger on it. However, one of the problems has been the writing. It's so disjointed and in series one is seems to come across as being overwhelmingly PC.

I'm always willing to give a new Doctor a series to settle in - new Dr, new writers, new companion. When SpyFall aired I felt that "hey this warming up!" The big reveal that O was the Master and the wonderful acting by Sacha Dhawan felt we're off!

Then "Orphan 55" comes along and is the TV equivalent of having a stick shoved in the spokes of your front bicycle wheel.

The whole episode is disjointed, characters doing stuff for bizarre reasons, plot devices and then the bizarre 'twist' at the end - OMG it's the Earth.

The real killers for me were : 1. Kane saying in such a callous, off-hand way "I killed him, because he asked me to" and then no-one coming to Vilma's defence. 2. The Doctor saying "It's only one possible future, billions of possibilities" - which goes against EVERYTHING said about these things. One thread that has come through ALL the Doctors is that once you have observed an event then it is FIXED in your timeline 3. The Doctor preaching at the end - this came across as more something the writer desperately wanted said on screen, rather than what and how the Doctor would have said it. 4. The BIGGEST was that they were returned back to the Tardis in the past, so why didn't the Doctor fire up the engines, zip forward and rescue Kane and Bella from an horrific death at the hands of the Dregs? Past Doctors wouldn't even have blinked at doing this. The rescue scene would have been great.

There were a lot of other flaws and I'm giving it a 3 rather than a 1 (and I never give 1s...) because : 1. The Dregs design was superb - One of the best alien monster designs for ages. 2. James Buckley trying to do his best to inject a little humour 3. It's NOT "Kill The Moon" - Which IMHO IS the worst episode ever.

Next episode's premise is about the battle between Edison & Tesla - this has the premise for being a good episode. Let's see. Can't be worse that this one....

Hopefully this will be the "Token Stinker"

Paddington 2 (2017)

Unbelievably good, brings back all those Paddington memories

[10/10 · 13 November 2017]

I used to read all the Paddington books when I was a small boy and my wife when she was a little girl. We both loved all the crazy escapades that Paddington got into and he did it all with a good heart.

I very much enjoyed seeing the first Paddington but did feel it wasn't quite Paddington with the scary woman and the scary scenes.

Paddington 2 completely captures the essence of the the books and really wrings out the most of some of the characters.

Brendan Gleeson is superb as the 'nasty' Knuckles who quickly warms to Paddington. This might sound far-fetched but the whole film is very childish. Now that's not childish in the sense of "silly and immature" but in the other definition of "appropriate to a child". The whole film shows and plays scenes as a child might imagine things to be - for example how the prison works and especially the lovely idea that the warden reads the inmates a bedtime story to help them all get to sleep.

There are superb performance from all the actors and a huge number of cameos. Even the small scenes put in by the like of Joanna Lumley and Rob Brydon are clearly done with great love from the actors. Hugh Grant puts in a superb over the top performance as the baddie, which really let him flex his vocal talents!

The whole film is done in bright colours and with a superb musical backing track. When you are watching the film be careful to pay attention to all the small details, such as the newspaper headlines and the To Do list in the Brown's Kitchen, there a huge number of little jokes in the background and I suspect I'll spot a whole load more when I watch this again on Blu-Ray!

Not really spoilers but there is only one really 'scary' scene near the end but it is so beautifully done and you know that Paddington will win so even the little ones won't cry. And make sure you stay for ALL the credits as they play out to an amazing "what happened after" montage.

I have noticed that that at the time of writing this review there were 927 votes and 15 people have given the film a 1-star. Now I know everyone is entitled to their opinion but in this case I suspect these people might not really understand Paddington and what he's all about, if you have young children and they love Paddington then they will love this film.

This film is suitable for young children aged 4 to 104 :)

Let you into a secret, when my wife and I went to watch this film there were a lot of people in the cinema but not one was under 18! From the looks of it the audience was aged 20 - 80!

I cried and I laughed through the whole film and rekindled my inner Paddington.

Into the Woods (2014)

Disney film - Yes. Disney script? No. Not for little children

[8/10 · 10 January 2015]

It would seem to be from a HUGE number of reviews on this board that people have no idea that this film is an adaptation of the award winning stage musical by Sondheim.

ALL the songs and the plot are as they are on the stage with some cuts to bring the running time down and to make it work on the big screen.

So before you dismiss it OR watch it then you should be aware that this is NOT a fairy story for kids. It's dark and brooding in places and also has some adult themes (including infidelity).

The basic plot in the first Act is that all the characters go into the woods to fulfil their wishes, which is what eventually happens. However in Act II the story explores the CONSEQUENCES of getting what you wish for.

In the play, by the end of the show, nearly half the characters are killed off, including some of the princesses.

Without putting spoilers in, I would say that if you are unfamiliar with the stage show and are considering taking your children to see this film, take a good read of the plot synopsis on Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_the_Woods

It's shame that so many people are giving this film a 1-star because it shocked them and upset the kids.

So is it a good adaptation? YES!

Last year my music society put on the stage version and we loved the show - the music is clashy and odd but it's supposed to be. A lot of have now been to see this film and we all have enjoyed it. We were disappointed at some of the songs cut (the reprise of Agony is even funnier than the first) but something has to go to cut a three hour show down to 2 hours on the screen.

Oh and "Our Fault" should be sung a lot quicker than in the film!

I hope people will find this review useful BEFORE they go to the film and once they understand the show's plot and whom it is suitable for then they will enjoy it.

Oh if you do like it, then go and watch the stage version - it's darker.....

Can't wait to see it again.....

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014)

Resurrection of a hero?

[9/10 · 3 January 2015]

Went to see this after only briefly watching the trailer and here's my advice - ignore the trailer.

This is not a superhero film. I won't go into the nitty gritty of what makes this a great film as that would spoil all the nice little "is that real?" touches.

The film has a simple premise - an ex-movie star who was Birdman in a multi-billion dollar franchise (20 years previous) decides, for reasons you need to decide on, to restart his career in theatre.

He's written a play based on a short story by Raymond Carvers and is also directing, producing and starring in it. He's sunk everything into this play, money, spirit, sanity and will do anything to make it a success.

It's a slow film to build but that's fine, it tells an unfolding story of a man plagued by all sorts of demons but he's got a supportive group around him (for the most part)

I personally think that this is Keaton's finest acting. It shows what he can do when all the special effects and silly comedy is stripped away.

Edward Norton turns in a fine performance as the supporting actor role (in both the film and the play) - Mike. Riggan & Mike have a sort of love/hate relationship and the dialogues between Keaton & Norton are brilliant.

The rest of the supporting cast are great and my favourite scene is where Riggan confronts the critic Tabitha. I think every actor out there would agree 100% with what he says to her.

For a film that is about an actor who played a superhero, I think it's interesting how the main actors have played major roles in superhero movies : Michael Keaton - Batman Edward Nolan - The Hulk

(Might be coincidence!)

This is a film that you have to work at, it's full of discord (take the clashy drums in the background) and a LOT of dialogue. The film hardly ever leaves the theatre.

If you need a nice story tied up in a bow with lots of action and a happy ending, you won't like this. The final scene is reminiscent of Inception, you'll see why.....

But if you like a film with flawed characters, great dialogue and brilliantly acted then you can't go wrong with Birdman. My son is 15 and finds films like this hard to sit through (Mr Fidget!) but at the end he said it was a great film.

There are so many wonderful little nuances that I think I might need to watch it again.

Enjoy....

Robots (2005)

A film for kids of all ages

[10/10 · 12 March 2005]

I just took my 6 year old to see this and I'm going to approach this review from the experience we had in the cinema. You can watch trailer and read the plot & cast list elsewhere and even in-depth analyses.

First of all this is a film for KIDS. The plot is aimed squarely at them so it is simplistic. It has to be. Anything too complex and kids will get lost.

Anyway, my son and I laughed like drains through the whole film and so did the rest of the audience. There are some nice gags for adults in there including fleeting references to other films. Star Wars is an obvious one but there is a lovely reference to 2001:A Space Odessey - see if you spot it. Some of the gags are lightening fast - e.g. a robot gets belted just as he walks out the upgrade shops and his upgrades are knocked off and land on another. This robot strikes an heroic pose and there is a single chord form the Halleuiah Chorus! Blink and you miss it.

One of the best gags for adults is a the beginning when Rodney is being built, you'll know when you see it as I called out "I WANT one of those!" and all the other adults agreed! Some of the humour is basic but sooo funny. The Farting scene is painfully funny, I thought I was going to fall off my chair. The bit where the lamp-post falls to his knees gasping for air is a killer and the icing is when the scene shifts to the next day and there is a chalk outline! It has lovely imagery and characters and for the British audience it's nice when Terry Wogan(!) gets a cameo voice over.

I'll sum it up by saying that as we left the theatre I said "I want to see it again" and my 6-year old was bouncing up and down asking if we could get the DVD.

As far as I'm concerned if I take my son to a film, he sits through the WHOLE thing without leaving his seat ONCE and then asks for more then the movie makers get a 9 out of 10. if I've enjoyed it they get a 10.

This movie scores an 11 :)

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

Awesome, but remember it's a film not a book

[10/10 · 18 December 2002]

Right, first off - this film is awesome - the wide sweeping pan shots are used to the full extent against breathtaking scenery; the special effects blend beautifully with the live action and the battle scenes are simply amazing.

Now I've read a lot of gripes about how the director strayed from the book, but to these people I say this - you are watching a film, not reading the book. The medium is different and a massive story has to be condensed to 3 hours. Also there are large sections of the book that work well as prose but if filmed would be deadly dull so a certain amount of artistic license has to creep in. Also if the story was told exactly how the book ran, what sort of surprises and twists would there be for those people that know the books well?

As someone who is familiar with the books but not read them for about 20 years, the story did NOT jar at any point, it flowed nicely from point to point and also the director cut between the three threads (Sam & Frodo, Pippin and whatsisface and finally the battle for Rohan) very nicely.

There are going to be a lot of mixed feelings about this film considering it is of one of the most famous and well known stories on the planet. My suggestion is that you should just watch it and enjoy it for what it is.

There was humour and I think (although some will disagree) it defused the situation just the right amount.

No spoilers but things to watch out for and enjoy: The Battle of the Keep, The Attack of the Ents, The Battle of Gandalf and the Balrog, Dragons, Gollum.

This film is better than the 1st - I hate to think how good the third would be.

The only negative thing I can think of is that as the film ends you realise you now have to wait a year for the final chapter!!

This scores 9.9 out of 10

The Time Machine (2002)

A very good attempt to update the original 1960 film

[6/10 · 10 July 2002]

This was a very good attempt to bring the story up to date. It also introduced an important element that was sort of lacking in the original story & film - why DID the Traveller build the machine? Watch the film to find out.

It was well structured with each little section leading onto the next, it even explained the reason why the Morlocks went underground. This time the Eloi were not simple brain-dead creatures and the Morlocks were not clumsy, light-fearing fat humans. The Morlocks were physically superior to humans (800,000 years of evolution) and the chase sequences are beautifully crafted.

I felt that the acting was pretty good with some very familiar faces. It was lovely to see Alan Young, who played Philby in the original film, getting a cameo as the florist. My only gripe was that although Jeremy Irons was excellent as the Uber-Morlock, he didn't get long enough in the film.

The sets are out of this world, especially the Eloi's cliff hanging dwellings and the field of rotating 'windmills' was something else. My wife, who isn't a great sci-fi fan, said that the Time Machine itself was awesome and I have to agree. It must have taken weeks to build and was a beautiful piece of craftsmanship - I only hope it is or will end up in a film museum.

The special effects are beautiful and well used. The use of lighting when the Time Machine moves is very well done and the sequence where Alexander travels 800,000 years into the future with the changes in geography and such is a wonder to watch. The effect at the beginning of the film where the moon is breaking up looks very realistic. The music is great too, the haunting vocals when you first encounter the Eloi send shivers down your spine.

The is also a lot of little throwaways to be spotted in the film, such as references to Star Trek, the original film, Asimov and many more - see if you can spot them all!

In summary, this is a nicely crafted film and I'd recommend it.