Rezensionen von Boristhemoggy

As an ancient threat endangers both Vikings and dragons alike on the isle of Berk, the friendship between Hiccup (Mason Thames), an inventive Viking, and Toothless, a Night Fury dragon, becomes the key to both species forging a new future together. The friendship is threatened by Hiccup's father, Stoick (Gerard Butler).

I have not seen any of the animations so I had no idea what the film was about. But I gave it a shot and was very pleasantly surprised.

The CGI is mostly fine and the acting is as you'd expect from a film like this. Nick Frost (Gobber) always makes me smile no matter what he does and I was pleased that the script didn't spend wasted time on things that didn't matter. There was a nice little romance going on too and a sub story about why dragons were the way they were. All thoroughly enjoyable and I'm glad I watched it. A very solid 6 from me.

Former US Amy Ranger, Cameron Poe (Nicolas Cage), has just been paroled after a long jail sentence for manslaughter. But before he can reunite with his wife and the child he's never seen, he must stop a group of violent and deadly criminals from escaping the country after they seize control of the prison transport plane he is on.

I just watched this again in 2025 and it hasn't lost any of it's charm. There's some poignancy, some romance, some action, some edge of your seat anxiety, and some funny moments too, and an all star cast ensures that this film hits the mark.

Possibly the only film I've seen Nicolas Cage in where he takes a half decent part. I really enjoyed it despite it being nearly 30 years since it came out. A solid 7 from me even for such an old film.

Eve (Ana de Armas) is trained in the traditions of the Ruska Roma organization, as well as being trained as a ballerina. She sets out to seek revenge after her father's death, causing mayhem and chaos wherever she goes.

The film comes on the John Wick timeline between Parabellum and Chapter 4 and is a tried and tested plot of revenge. Eve's father is killed by "The chancellor" (Gabriel Byrne) so she makes it her life's mission to hunt him down and kill him. However, "The Director" isn't happy about the 'truce' being broken so she sends in the best -John Wick (Keanu Reeves)- to stop Eve in her tracks.

There's obviously an awful lot of action, most of it OK, but some not so much. Less than great special effects let it down sadly. Saying that, once you're into the story and have picked your side, a few dodgy effects doesn't dampen the excitement.

Ana De Armas isn't know for her strong acting although she puts in an adequate performance, and matches the abilities and energy of the rest of the cast. Familiar faces and processes crop up to ground you in the John Wick universe and the name of the game is enjoyable action. And that's precisely what we get.

It's never going to win awards, but it's another decent action flick to back up the previous 4. I gave it a solid 6.

Lucy (Dakota Johnson) is a successful matchmaker at a New York company who hasn't even made a match for herself since her breakup with fiancé John (Chris Evans). But all that's about to change.

The film is having a cold, close look at how we navigate dating in the 21st century, what the pit falls are, and how we lost the art of dating from years ago. It analyses the tropes of women only wanting men who are a 10, even if they are only a 3, and men who only want younger women because 'they're fresher'.

It explores, through the experience of Lucy, John and Lucy's boyfriend Harry (Pedro Pascal), what love actually is and how do you know when you have it, or feel it. What lengths will you go to show love or try to get it, and what actually even is 'Love'?

It's an insightful and thoughtful film with many opportunities for thought about your own life and loves. Beautifully filmed and produced, and well acted.

Dakota Johnson is not an A list Oscar winner, but she is a very capable actor and has amazing on screen presence which means even in a bad role, she sucks you in and makes you enjoy her role. This one shows her talent very well. Chris Evans also puts in a fine performance as Dakota's adoring ex, but sadly Pedro Pascal, true to form, is a disappointment. He seems to be very popular but is a weak actor who simply can't make you believe in his character.

All in all it's a very entertaining film, a very thought provoking film, and visually a beautiful film to watch. The flow and pace is perfect and I can't see any reason anyone would not like this film.

I thoroughly enjoyed it and gave it a solid 7.

Five years after Jurassic World: Dominion (2022), an expedition braves isolated equatorial regions to extract DNA from three massive prehistoric creatures for a ground-breaking medical breakthrough.

I was very much looking forward to this film as I've loved all of the Jurassic Park films so far. However, the first 20-30 minutes is dire. The script is absolutely awful and has Zora (Scarlett Johansson) reminiscing with Duncan (Mahershala Ali) in the most cringeworthy way. I was quite shocked that 2 actors of such standing could be given such cringeworthy dialogue. It reminded me of some of the worst war films ever made.

Happily the film does improve after that but never really recovers totally from the cringe. There are a lot of cringe moments in the film so you should know that going into it.

Nevertheless, despite the cringe and cheesy scenes that continue throughout, somehow the story still works. I admit I almost fell asleep during the first half hour, but after that I paid better attention and on the whole, the film works as entertainment.

It's not your usual Jurassic movie though, and had Mahershala Ali not been cast the film would have flopped. He makes it. He's kind of a focal point for half decent acting. Not one of his co-stars really supports him very well.

Still, it's a wild ride, the CGI was great, apart from Ali the acting was appalling, the script was terrible, but visuals were fabulous. And bonus, they left it open so that there could easily be a follow up.

If you can ignore cheesy and cringeworthy moments and all of it's other faults you'll exit the cinema having enjoyed the film. I gave it a solid 6.

I only watched 2.5 episodes of Beacon 23 before turning it off and vowing never to put it on again.

It is a Sci Fi show so you expect things to be different in the future. But there we see the heavily tattooed Lena Headey (Caster Alyx) with her lip filler at maximum and her heavy Yorkshire accent, which firmly places her as a lower class person from a small region of the UK in early 21st century. How does that mesh with Sci Fi? The show is set in the 23rd century, and I am sure that the current trend of tattoos, lip fillers and regional accents will have long disappeared in the next 200 years.

She had absolutely zero authority on screen and rather than act, she was more just 'being' in a matter of fact way. She offered zero to the role or the show. None of the other actors -except maybe the AI Harmony (Natasha Mumba)- did a good job either so it was an ensemble fail.

The plot itself was irritating because we don't really know what's going on. 3 episodes in you'd think we'd know something about the plot, but apart from a few fights, a lot of arguments and tons of false pouting from Headey, we are literally no further forward to understanding what is going on.

A story has to engage you, build itself in front of you and entertain with the way it is told. This was just cringeworthy rubbish and no wonder it was cancelled. I rated it a 2 out of 10 and even then I feel I was generous.

A superstar singer (Tracee Ellis Ross) and her overworked personal assistant (Dakota Johnson) work closely together...until they don't. But then they become even closer than either of them could have imagined.

Firstly, I watched this for the sole reason that Dakota Johnson starred. I loved her performance like I've loved every performance she's ever done. However, the film is not as big as she is.

It's a great story, with lots of music industry tropes in, and a moral about being who you want to be and believing in yourself. It's also a little romantic (as almost all Johnson films are) and it has some smushy moments which are totally manufactured, but still nice.

Overall it's a decently paced, written, acted and directed film which is not really memorable, but will be enjoyable for the time that you watch it.

I gave it a 6 and some of that score was just because of Dakota Johnson.

Frank (Chris Evans) took custody of his sister Diane's baby, Mary (McKenna Grace) when Diane committed suicide. He spends years raising her until Evelyn (Lyndsay Duncan), Frank and Diane's mother, tries to take custody of her grand-daughter Mary. A court and a personal battle ensues.

I only watched this film because Jenny Slate was in it and I'm a big fan. I am glad I did because it ha filled my evening beautifully. Mckenna Grace is astonishing at aged 10 when the film was shot, and she out acts every adult in the film.

The range of emotions was slightly whelming and and I really got angry at the typical court process which follows rules instead of human hearts.

It's a beautiful and yet haunting story, very well told. I give it a solid 6.

An anomaly from space appears in Earth's orbit and plants an 'artefact' into the ground. Humans attempt to determine what it is, why it's been placed there, and what's going to happen next, but it's taking too long to crack the code so they send a team into space to the source of the object, to investigate further.

This is a fabulous story. I enjoyed it immensely, any Sci Fi fan will like it despite it's faults, even though the plot holes are numerous and there's almost zero real life science mixed in with the story. So now I've said that, let's hear the faults.

Oodles of long, thigh gap shots, manufactured by obviously visible shape assisting underpants. Sooo distracting.

Sackhoff's 'Joker' type smile is not only unnerving but distinctly unattractive and almost cartoonish looking. She also would make a better theatre actor as her love of overacting melodrama is obvious, along with her oft used 'power voice' and numerous odd facial expressions using just about every muscle she has in her skeletal face. It's sometimes difficult to know what she's feeling as her face contorts like the death throes of a wounded shark.

So many scenes are chock full of grandiose hyperbole, offering fundamentally faux-insightful, psycho-therapeutic gibberish to explain why someone was 'angry'. And anger features a lot during both seasons. It's as if there can't be any professionalism without expressed anger which later brings a soft voiced and contrite apology. As if an apology wipes the slate clean. This is not how leaders and crew work.

The changing of minds by a simple question. So many times the commander had her mind made up. Then someone would say something simple like 'Is that a great idea?' And instantly the commander backs down and changes her mind. This happens repeatedly throughout both seasons and just makes the commander look weak and indecisive and easily manipulated.

The constant death of shipmates was met with stern 'mission first' stoicism and acceptance. Yet an AI character is mourned excessively. All while staggering from one potentially world-ending scenario to another on a scarily regular basis.

There's a ton of vocal fry, mostly from the women, which is not only frustrating to listen to but is completely unnecessary. Was this meant to relate to teens who love the vocal fry? Or is it simply Americans love vocal fry so much because it drops the high pitched American female voice and makes them more masculine therefore what they say has more gravitas? Who knows...but in a serious film or TV show affectations like this should be barred as they tie the production down to a specific location, time period and trend. Also they're simply off-putting to listen to.

There are many scenes which seem to go on and on and on for no good reason. Looks are exchanged, music becomes uplifting, more looks are exchanged, long, detailed speeches are made, lot's of unreadable expressions flow across faces, and more looks are exchanged, and then...nothing. It was all supposed to build tension for no good reason because, nothing was going to happen anyway. The direction a lot of the time is incredibly pitiful and amateurish, the writing being just as bad.

Although all of the actors have their odd moment, the best and most consistent actor is Samuel Anderson who plays 'William', the AI man. I gave it an overall 5 and I was being generous with that. But if you have nothing else to watch at all and you crave Sci Fi, you will enjoy it on some level.

Liara (Eloise Mumford) finds herself in Italy and falling in love with a derelict villa which her family has historical ties to. She impulsively decides to buy it and meets a handsome local, Leo (Kevin McGarry). What does her life mean now... I only watched this as I love Eloise Mumford. I think she's playing a younger part than her real age but as she is so cute and a good actor she carries off the part easily without any problems at all.

There is good chemistry between the two leads without being over the top, or gushing, or sultry, it's just good old fashioned romance.

There's nothing exciting in the film and nothing ground breaking but it is a lovely story and very well told. There's some really well defined characters that meld easily into the cast, enough to make the story feel really genuine.

I very much enjoyed it and I give it a solid 6 despite romance films not being my genre at all.

Carly (Leigha Sinnott) meets a cute, sweet guy called Abram (Sam Bullington) in a local coffee shop. They bond and spend a perfect summer together, before Carly has to end things as she is going off to college.

However, during her first week who should turn up studying at the same college...but Abram. That's not the only surprise.

Don't expect fabulous acting, you won't find it here. Don't expect the best script, it certainly isn't. Don't expect nail biting tension because while there is tension, it's certainly not nail biting and it's somewhat predictable.

Nevertheless, it is not a bad or nasty film, and everything is done just enough to be able to watch it in one go without being bored. You probably won't tell your friends about it and you won't watch it multiple times, but you won't hate yourself for wasting 90 minutes of your life either. I gave it a solid 5.

In a remote village on the island of Carpathia, Maxim (Willen Dafoe) is in charge of a troop of children he is raising and training to hunt the mythical beasts called the Ochi.

One of the children Yuri (Helena Zengel) discovers a wounded baby Ochi left behind after a failed hunt and embarks on a journey to bring him home.

So, the film opens to a voice over by Yuri, but you can barely make out what her quiet and monotone voice is saying. Then starts the deplorable recorder music. Honestly, it was so bad I was skipping forward to avoid it. Godawful music was to become the feature of this entire film.

The acting was atrocious, even from Willem Dafoe. There appears to have been no direction whatsoever for the actors, it was as if they were all sick and tired of being there and just wanted to get it over with.

The cinematography was non-existent. It was the quality of a home made video from the 70's, with age old scenery and the poorest animation I've seen for years. The Ochi when we get to see them are literally stuffed fluffy toys.

The pace is slower than the death march. There's godawful recorder music playing when nothing is really happening on screen, and the entire soundtrack is like something from 1940's Hungary.

The plot is also pretty lame. I get that it's supposed to be based on a folk tale but it's just plain silly. I did not manage to get to the end of the film, and that disappointed me as Dafoe and Emily Watson should have guaranteed something at least half watchable.

I originally rated it at 2 stars, but as I mulled over what to say for this review I dropped it down to 1. It really is not worth watching even if you are bored senseless.

A single mother Janiyah (Taraji P Henson) experiences a seemingly endless and increasingly devastating events in her life, leading her down a rabbit hole she never saw coming. Not only is her life unravelling but almost every moment seems to be conspiring to make her look like a criminal instead of a victim. How on earth to deal with a situation such as this?

It's a beautiful story of fortitude in the face of adversity, but about how all of us are only 1 event away from our lives unravelling. It may not even be a choice we make, it might be an accident or something pushed on us unwittingly. It may even be something misinterpreted by someone else that leads us to to end up in a downward spiral. How would we all cope? Would we be as stoic as Janiyah?

It also shows how authorities from schools, child protection, banks and police can all sanction our lives due to rigid protocols that don't take any account at all of mitigating circumstances and human mistakes. Life in the 21st century can be rigid and uncompromising and sadly it's other human beings who make it that way and enforce it.

I've never heard of Taraji P Henson and I only watched the film as it came up on a stream. Boy am I glad it did. Henson absolutely floored me with her performance, and at times I laughed but mostly I cried as her life unravelled right in front of me. She moved from feeling harassed, to scared, to humble acceptance, to anger, to fear, to confusion and finally to defiance. But through it all she kept her compassion for other people, and her great sense of resilience and honesty.

I was saddened by the mostly black cast, it's rare to see a film that only has white people as peripheral characters, especially in these enlightened, DEI days.

Nevertheless it was a fabulous film beautifully presented and I give it a solid 7.

Fleeing her abusive ex, Jess (Skye Coyne) hires a boat to take her across Lake Superior to Canada. When the boat sinks, Jess is rescued by a reclusive lighthouse keeper Adaline (Shelli Manzoline). But as she is nursed back to health, Jess realizes she's fallen into another trap.

The film is shot very much in TV style but don't let that put you off. People used to cinema might find it odd, but remember, it's the story that matters.

It's actually not badly shot. Sometimes the lighting isn't great but the sound was always top grade. The acting wasn't to bad either from the two female leads. I'd never heard of Skye Coyne before but she has piqued my interest by really leaning into the role of Jess and putting in a more than good performance.

In terms of direction there were some tense moments, but nothing where you'd fall off your seat or grit your teeth, nevertheless you find yourself mentally preparing for extreme stress several times.

I think a 5 is a very fair rating, and I really want to watch anything else Skye Coyne has done.

Christian Wolff (Ben Affleck) applies his brilliant mind and illegal methods to reconstruct the unsolved puzzle of a Treasury chief's murder.

Only very mildly interesting as a film featuring neuro divergents.

I almost lost track of what was going on several times. The story is poorly written and badly acted as well as being slowly paced and barely followable.

There was some mildly good acting going on by the female assassin who's name I forget, but that's all.

The music is dreadful, and the sound appears to have been folied in an aircraft hangar most of the time.

I really didn't enjoy the film apart from the female assassin, who's name might never have actually been mentioned, so I gave it a 4.

While exploring the neighboring woods, 13-year-old John discovers an unfinished bunker--a deep hole in the ground. Seemingly, without provocation, he drugs his affluent parents and older sister, and drags their unconscious bodies into the bunker, where he holds them captive.

I thought during the film that Jon (Charlie Shotwell) was neuro divergent. But after watching it, and googling it to find out what the heck it was about, I find out he's not neuro divergent. He just wants to find out what it's like to be 'adult', that is without anyone telling you what to do.

I read that there's an element abou how we raise our kids without consequences, and this is the result. But I read lot's of other things too. Some say it's a highbrow film, a piece of human art: I say it's just a load of old rubbish.

I completely wasted 1 hour and 45 minutes on this film that I won't ever get back and I'm annoyed at myself.

I rated it a 2.

Firstly, 28 Years Later suffers from some technical difficulties. The steady cam is not steady, and I almost got motion sickness through the wavering camera. Then the dust bunnies (blurred dots on the screen which are specs of dirt inside the camera.) This is unforgivable in a film of this supposed calibre.

Then the sound: appalling. The sound track is sometimes very clever, but not for this film. Many scenes had sounds that made you think something terrifying was happening, but there wasn't. At other times there was god awful music which did not match scenes and offered nothing whatsoever to the film.

The film was a mixture of disparate and sometimes chaotic scenes that did not flow into one another and did not form an overall plot. We kept asking each other "What's going on? Why did they do that? What's this got to do with anything?" It felt like they had a few ideas that would be good for a few scenes, but they had no clue how to join the scenes into a story.

Every time a zombie is hit by an arrow, the film freezes so you can see the arrow and the blood, then the motion starts again. It added absolutely nothing to the film and frustrated me with the constant stopping and starting.

It would have taken them 2 days to walk to the Gateshead Angel from Holy Island, and that's walking fast for 12 hours each day. Yet when they got there not only was there no evidence of the ruins of the massive sprawling town that Gateshead is, they are still no nearer to the fire than they were when Spike was out with his Dad and first saw the fire. Crazy.

Did I mention the utterly appalling soundtrack??

The end scenes were a farce. There really is no better word. It reminded me of something out of Clockwork Orange, with 10 Jimmy Savile's displaying grade 1 athletics in coloured tracksuits while annihilating zombies with golf clubs. An utterly nonsensical scene which was typical 70's slapstick and most of the cinema was chuckling at how bad it was.

I was massively disappointed given the price of the seats, and the fact I had been waiting with anticipation to see another great film in the sequence. As it happens it was a damp squib that people will laugh at later. I would seriously caution you to save your cinema money and wait until this streams.

I was very generous by giving this a 4 and that was mostly for Alfie.

Kate (Julianne Moore) is dealing with a personal tragedy while owning and training horses in Echo Valley, an isolated and picturesque place, when her daughter, Claire (Sydney Sweeney), arrives at her doorstep, frightened, trembling and covered in someone else's blood.

Right from the off the film promises to be something good, there's just a vibe about it. As the story grows you think it's going to be all about her wasting her life on her daughter and coming to an untimely end because of her.

But after some skilful twists and turns we realise it was never the film we thought it was going to be. Moore is fabulous as the mother, and Sweeney sure shows her acting chops as the wayward daughter. Domnhall Gleeson is at his menacing best in this taut, surprising thriller.

I very much enjoyed it and give it a solid 7.

Based on the true story of Moth (Jason Isaacs) and Ray (Gillian Anderson) Winn, who after losing their house in an unspecified court procedure, discover that Moth has an incurable illness. Homeless, they decide to walk from Minehead to Land's End. After many difficulties and adventures they arrive, but with a brand new existential mindset based around 'home' being not their old farmhouse, but wherever they happen to be.

It's a lovely story written from Ray's 600 pages of notes she wrote during their journey, and in a nutshell sends a message of never give up, always keep hope, recognise what you have instead of what you haven't.

Isaacs plays an excellent part, Anderson is good, but lacks the depth of acting needed to make the role great. There's some beautiful countryside and great editing and all in all I give it a solid 7.

Muriel (Daisy Edgar Jones) and her husband Lee (Will Poulter) are about to begin a bright new life, which is upended by the arrival of Lee's brother Julius (Jacob Elordi). Muriel embarks on a secret life, gambling on racehorses and discovering a love she never thought possible.

I think the film is trying to say that none of us know what we want, until we lose what we don't want, and find what we do. But I could be wrong because this tedious film doesn't actually seem to have a point.

It's nicely filmed, but so slow I was getting quite frustrated at things not happening, and when they did they made no sense. I honestly think it is nothing more than a titillating film with men on men sex, women on women sex and plenty of boobs, camel toe and men in white underpants.

There's no real flow at all and no real storyline; it's empty and boring. Will Poulter is great but apart from him there's not much decent acting going on. It was laborious to get through to the end so I give it a 4 and that's being incredibly generous.

Some time after the events of The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, Sam Wilson (Anthony Mackie) has now fully embraced his title as the new Captain America. Now Sam is summoned to the White House as the new president Ross (Harrison Ford) wants to work with him on rebuilding the Avengers. But trouble ensues when Sam's friend Isaiah Bradley (Carl Lumbly) uncontrollably tries to assassinate the president and is framed for the attempt. Now Sam and his partner Joaquin Torres (Danny Ramirez) must race against time to uncover the true culprit and foil an evil plot that unwittingly involves President Ross.

Good storyline with past references, but too much CGI. The fight scenes are sometimes repetitive, and sometimes silly. The pacing is a little slow, but the final scenes are very drawn out and you find yourself thinking "Just end it now, man".

5' 1" Shira Haas has zero credibility as the security officer who can take down 6 armed soldiers at the same time, all over 6 feet tall, by herself. Gal Gadot...maybe, but Haas is the most silly casting decision in a long time.

I'ma big fan of Anthony Mackie and he doesn't disappoint, same with Harrison Ford. Ably assisted by Carl Lumbly they really are the hinge pins of the entire film. It's not the greatest, but it's a decent adventure. I gave it a 6 and that was mainly for the 3 main actors.

A platoon of Navy SEALs embark on a dangerous mission in Ramadi, Iraq. In the chaos and brotherhood of war, their story is retold in real time through their own memories of the event.

The film starts out with the music video of 'Call on Me' by Eric Prydz playing on a TV, in front of some very appreciative soldiers in full battledress. The soldiers engage in high jinx, ribald laughter and lewd behaviour in response to the scantily clad ladies dancing suggestively on the screen. This is a great technique for introducing all the soldiers of the platoon in a relaxed, recreational atmosphere full of fun and laughter.

It then transitions into a dark, deserted street in Iraq, soldiers stealthily making their way to a target, not a sound being made. In fact the song on the TV at the beginning is the only music throughout the entire film, and what a massively positive impact that has.

The film builds from the quiet street scene, gradually upping the excitement, until it leads to a full blown crescendo which lasts the majority of the film. The laughing, ribald guys we see at the beginning take shape as serious warriors, killing and being killed, and we see how the events affect each one of them in different ways.

It's real time which heightens the tension, and there's zero music or soundtrack because the film doesn't need it. It is perfectly scripted, with the only things being said, those things that need to be said. Perfectly directed, with the mood and the excitement and the fear all being depicted perfectly by the platoon. The cinematography is fabulous, capturing everything it needs to and nothing that isn't necessary, but also allowing us a glimpse into the chaos of war where sometimes the vision is restricted and sometimes the movements are too quick to follow and sometimes you don't know who is friend and who is foe.

The film is graphic in parts, but not gratuitous violence and gore, just the real violence and injury that happens in war. There's no drum thumping though: Despite the questionable ethics of the Iraq war this film is not trying to paint America as a boot stomping hero, it's just showing you what war can really be like. And it does it perfectly because I felt joy, sadness, anxiety, desperation, fear and relief throughout the film.

I can't say it is a better film than Saving Private Ryan, or We Were Soldiers, or Dunkirk; but I can say it is different, presenting a brand new sort of war film that I've not seen before, one that actually makes you personally feel what it's like to be fighting in a war: It resonates and remains in memory for some time. The entire cast takes the characters perfectly, and you start to feel a little connection for some.

The only negative I see is a true story about specific named individuals, yet a man of colour plays the part of one of the white men. I will never really understand that casting decision. It feels like they're not portraying that one soldier correctly.

All in all a great film which I highly recommend to those who like war films, and I give it a well earned but rare 8 out of 10 from me.

A great film lasts somewhere around 2 hours. With Silo we were spoiled rotten with 20 hours in the first series, which started slow, but as characters developed and the story started to come out, it continue as being...slow.

It ended of course on a massive cliffhanger and we'd have to wait til next season to catch up. However, next season turned out to be a full year and a half later! I'd forgotten the entire story by then. So now we have another 20 hours and guess what? We're no further ahead. Nothing much happens. And I'm sure it's getting darker so you can't see what's going on, but that doesn't matter because honestly, almost nothing is going on.

I just finished Ep 7 of S2 and that's my lot. I am wasting a huge amount of time without much story development, and being honest the acting apart from maybe Ferguson and Robbins and Common, is pretty low level.

I can make my own ending up from here, but I'm not wasting any more time on a difficult to see, snail slow, unexciting, poorly acted, monotonous show with a year and a half between seasons.

A group of spirits restlessly squabble in an abandoned country house. To their despair, a young couple inherits the house with hopeful plans to renovate it into a luxury hotel.

I made the mistake of watching US Ghosts first. US Ghosts is a fabulous series and I felt a strong sadness when I reached the end of the current series.

However, I soon found that UK Ghosts is virtually identical, even some of the storylines were copied by the US version.

Nevertheless, what set me off with the UK version was the poor casting, the shaky SteadyCam (not steadycam) footage, the simpleton approach to some of the characters, the slapstick/childish/farcical approach to humour, and the fact that it was incredibly frustrating and at times quite dark. The group of ghosts were based on naughty 11 year olds left without supervision and there wasn't much humour in the first 4 episodes. The acting was sub par and felt like a group of amateurs. No, I apologise, I've seen groups of amateurs do far better. (I am not watching anymore than those 4 episodes) Charlotte Ritchie was the glue that held the series together, but even her role was scripted badly and relied on stupid events and her trying to hide them.

The set in US Ghosts was beautiful with exceptional attention to detail. Sadly Button House was just like a run down mansion even after they did it up.

I loved the concept, but the BBC have little idea how to bring such a comedy to life without resorting to slapstick and idiocy. I gave this a paltry 4 and I can't wait for season 5 of US Ghosts.

A young couple, Sam (Rose McIver) and Jay (Utkarsh Ambudkar), inherit a haunted mansion and, unaware of their invisible housemates, plan to turn it into a B&B. Their lives become much more complicated after a fall causes Sam to see the ghosts.

I have been bereft of quality comedy since Friends ended in 2004. But Ghosts came along and filled that void. Ever since I watched the pilot I was hooked, and I can honestly say that at the end of season 4 I have not disliked a single episode.

One of the rare things to happen in comedy is when you get an ensemble cast with not one single weak character. Every single character of the extended cast is well defined, and excellently portrayed by the actors. So much so you can't even see them as NOT their character in other works.

The only actor I knew before watching this series was Rose McIver, but I love every single one of them now. I laughed and was aghast and was saddened at the storylines, even though it's a comedy it has a broad impact still.

I was overjoyed when I heard seasons 5 and 6 had been greenlighted, I honestly can't wait. A solid and rare 8 for this show from me.