Opiniones de davidallenxyz

I've watched a lot of Partridge over the years and this show made me realise something I hadn't picked up on before.

Partridge monologues are not particularly funny. They rarely surprise you. What is funny is his interactions with other people, because these are what bring out the consequences of his inherent awkwardness.

"How are you" is 80% monologue. These occasionally raise a smile because of the wordplay, but big laughs are few and far between.

The frustration is that all the ingredients are there to make a much better show. Lynn is there. Sidekick Simon is there. Alan has a new girlfriend. But they barely appear. The new girlfriend in particular is completely undeveloped.

This needed a lot more time spent on it. It's intended to look cheap and rushed, but it also feels cheap and rushed.

Alan dressing as Rupert Bear by mistake will stick with me though. Back of the net!

Granted I'm rating this a 6/10 but that's not because I didn't find it funny.

I found half of the sketches funny. Some of them very funny. And the other half missed the mark.

They are at their best when they lean into being middle-aged - acknowledging the triviality of their interests and their growing misunderstanding of the younger generation. Sketches like "Middle Aged Man Island" or the one where Mitchell's daughter "comes out" are great examples.

They also have a sharp eye for media satire, demonstrated in the Writer's Room sketches and "The Weeping Shed".

When they miss the mark it's usually by relying on vulgarity and absurdity - a few too many knob jokes, basically. They are much better at smart humour than the sweary, abstract stuff.

The supporting cast are pretty decent too.

I tried really hard to stick with Boston Legal despite its obvious flaws, but couldn't take any more mid-way through the third season.

In brief - the sexual shenanigans the show repeatedly indulges in are far too embarrassing for the solid legal drama that sits underneath to overcome.

Season 1 is a case study of a show that is commissioned before anyone really knew what it was about. Burdened by a mystery health diagnosis for William Shatner's Denny Crane (which is rarely mentioned in later seasons), it is a revolving door of hotties for James Spader's Alan Shore to lech over, until panic casting of Candice Bergen forces it to get a bit more serious.

And the next two seasons are characterised by the struggle between weird sexual adventures (that are way beyond what would ever be suitable in the workplace) and really insightful courtroom drama that exposes serious issues in the US legal system.

As charismatic as Shatner and Spader are, you can only lose patience with how dumb the "comedy" aspects of the show become. Watching two lawyers fist fight over their mutual friend-with-benefits (also a lawyer) while dressed as Buzz Lightyear was the breaking point for me. Or was it the running gag of not noticing that a dwarf was listening in to your conversation?

In a parallel universe there is a version of this show that is played straight. That version would rate an 8. Sadly our universe is stuck with the version that rates a 3.

Andor Season 1 gets the basics right. It has a clear storyline, well-developed characters, and stunning production design (the "worldbuilding" that everyone likes to gush about). It's very clearly part of the Star Wars universe, but isn't burdened by it.

This may sound like I am damning it with faint praise. But the basics are important. Far too many shows overlook them.

That's not so say it is perfect. Like most streaming shows, it is a little too long for the quantity of story it contains. There are obvious lulls in the pace and overly-long build-ups to some events. But it's not a critical issue.

There is also a tendency to kill off characters to conveniently exclude them from future events, something that the Rogue One movie did as well. Again, not a critical issue, but one that you start to notice more often as the show goes on.

I have my doubts that Diego Luna is a good enough performer to carry the whole show. But the likes of Stellan Skarsgard, Denise Gough and Adria Arjona more than compensate for that. Once again, not a critical issue.

And it must be said that the action set-pieces are gripping and spectacular.

However Season 2 slips up on the basics. The story jumps ahead repeatedly to cover 4 years, and lacks a strong unifying thread. The first 9 episodes are mostly aimed at creating an emotional response rather than advancing the story. Characters get pushed to the fringe and become less interesting. Key events happen off-screen, and events that happen on-screen aren't fully contextualised.

The last three episodes are the crucial ones, because it is these that tie Andor to Rogue One. And they are the best of the season.

But I just cannot forgive the fact that the key piece of information that leads to the mission in Rogue One is discovered off-screen by a minor character. After all the work to introduce us to Cassian, Luthen and the other Rebels, it turns out that they had no direct involvement in getting it. It's a storytelling blunder of the highest order and undermines the whole show.

Season 1 is some of the best Star Wars content I've seen outside the Original Trilogy. Unfortunately, Season 2 leaves a lot to be desired and drags the overall rating down.

Gave it eight episodes of the first season to keep my attention but it didn't make the grade.

"Future Man" has a sharp concept and some clever writing. But the comedic moments aren't funny enough, and the dramatic moments aren't gripping enough - often because the comedy and drama work against each other in the same scene.

It doesn't helps that so many of the performances are weak - Eliza Coupe is just far too dry, and Derek Wilson doesn't find the right tone, so many of their lines fall flat.

As the series progresses, it's clear that the dramatic and action scenes are the most convincing part - perhaps the show would have been better played straight?

(Watched at a preview in Bristol as part of the London Film Festival)

I had high hopes for "A Real Pain" but despite a handful of funny moments and emotional speeches there are simply far too many areas where it misses the mark.

The biggest positive is Jesse Eisenberg himself. The writer/director anchors the film as awkward-yet-successful New Yorker David, who invites his cousin Benji (Kieran Culkin) on a trip to Poland to pay respect to their grandmother and reflect on their personal struggles. Eisenberg is believable and sympathetic, and is at the heart of the best scenes.

But Culkin is simply annoying. It is an energetic performance, no doubt about it, but his volatility and inability to read a situation means that he is the kind of person you would try to get away from within minutes of meeting them. It's hard to believe that he becomes the star attraction of the tour group.

Will Sharpe is also very weak as the tour guide, putting on an effete Yorkshire accent for comedy effect - perhaps American ears may not be so bothered by it but these British ears were very disappointed. The role would have been far stronger if played straight.

The other cast members have small roles but Jennifer Grey (yes, THE Jennifer Grey) and Kurt Egyiawan stand out, adding authenticity to their characters.

Aside from the variable performances, there is a general sense that the scenes were improvised and workshopped as they went along. Situations develop, or are implied to have developed, without any obvious cause or resolution. For a drama to succeed - and at heart, this is a drama - there needs to be a tautness to the script and story development that "A Real Pain" lacks. Any momentum that builds up slips away easily - I was looking at my watch after half an hour, and the film feels long even though it runs for less than 90 minutes.

Oh, and there are times when it feels like a promotion for the Polish tourist board - don't get me wrong, it made me want to visit, I just don't think that is the role of a feature film.

"A Real Pain" hints at having something important to say about grief, but it never finds the right words. A missed opportunity.

Don't be fooled by the silly title. Megan Park has combined her "what-if" premise with a sharp script and some fantastic performances to create an entirely delightful film.

Days away from leaving home to go to university, 18-year-old Elliot (Maisy Stella) gets high with friends and hallucinates a conversation with her 39-year-old self (Aubrey Plaza) - owner of Elliot's "Old Ass". Remarkably, text messages are able to travel through time and old Elliot is able to share advice about family and love with her younger self.

Stella is simply amazing as Elliott - so utterly natural and believable that you become fully absorbed in her rite of passage as she tries to re-engage with her family and fights against her attraction to people she's not sure she should be attracted to. Aubrey Plaza perfectly balances the dry wit and emotional vulnerability of the older Elliot. The co-leads are supported ably by the whole cast - a special mention goes to Percy Hynes White as Chad.

There are plenty of laughs as well - you will never look at Justin Bieber or Saoirse Ronan the same way again.

The only weakness is a couple of scenes where Elliot dives deeply into her sexual identity - they feel forced and don't really add anything to the story. If you were expecting this to be an example of "queer cinema" you're going to be disappointed.

"My Old Ass" is at heart a rom-com in the very best sense - it will pull at your heartstrings and it will make you laugh. Go see it.

Watching The Substance is an intense experience.

It's told in three acts. The first act sees Elisabeth Sparkle (Demi Moore) getting pushed out of the limelight solely because she is over 50, dreaming of staying relevant, and being introduced to the mysterious "Substance" that will give her access to youth again as long as she follows some strict rules.

The second act sees the ascendance of her younger self, known only as Sue (Margaret Qualley), as she takes the media by storm.

The third act is completely mental and any attempt to describe it would spoil the fun. One thing is for sure - you'll need a strong stomach to get through it.

Moore is fantastic - bravely exploring the fragility of being an older woman in a world obsessed with appearances. Qualley also puts in a strong performance, adding a knowing, playful streak to the hyper-sexualisation of her character. Dennis Quaid is hilariously over the top as a sleazy TV producer.

The visuals, sound design and special effects combine to create a slick, stylised world with a heavy dose of body horror.

The third act might be divisive. Certainly you could argue that is goes too far. But you can barely take your eyes away from whats happening.

I don't remember a film prompting so many conversations between audience members after it ended. If you are brave enough, go and experience it for yourself.

I haven't got a problem with extreme cinema - but I do have a problem with bad films. This is a very bad film.

Apparently it's trending on social media which is why my daughter asked to watch it with me. Don't make the same mistake.

This boils down to a story about a violent criminal coercing an intellectually disabled woman to have sex with him.

It's trying to present itself as a misfit love story. It's not. It's just crude and cruel.

When you realise that the director's previous work was a rape-fantasy video nasty that was actually banned in the UK, the intentions behind "Dinner in America" become much clearer.

It goes without saying that the acting is terrible and the storyline is completely absurd.

Don't fall for the hype. Avoid this film.

There's two sides to BlacKkKlansman.

One is a fantastic period thriller, where a pioneering black detective works with white colleagues to infiltrate the Ku Klux Klan.

The other is a heavy handed political statement from Spike Lee.

The first side is really good. Based on a true story, it feels authentic to its period, has great performances from John David Washington and Adam Driver, and builds tension expertly. You get a real sense of the risks the police face by getting so close to the rag-tag group of local Klan members, whose lack of organisation only serves to make them more dangerous.

A few parts of the story feel rushed - Washington's whirlwind romance with a student activist feels too much like a plot device, and the climactic action sequence takes a few liberties with space and time - but these don't really detract from what is, at heart, an impactful story about racism and prejudice in the United States.

Which begs the question of why Spike Lee felt it was necessary to include the flip side - several polemical and preachy sequences that hammer the same point home?

The audience is smart enough to know that the film is critical of racism. It didn't need the extra content that makes it explicit. Aside from the post-credits footage of violence at marches in 2017, there is also a speech on lynchings in the early 20th century, and a couple of sequences that are dedicated to celebrating black culture of the 1970s.

There is nothing wrong with this kind of content. But it belongs in a documentary. It doesn't benefit BlacKkKlansmann the feature film. And it's Lee's lack of confidence in the impact of the film on its own that actually ends up reducing its impact even more.

Apparently Kate Winslet was trying to get this story made for years. It's a shame that what she finally put on screen is so flat.

The best moments in the film are the scenes in liberated Paris and the final days of Nazi Germany. These sequences (including graphic content related to the holocaust) are handled delicately and have real impact.

But, without wanting to sound trite, it is easy for a film to have an impact when you are covering one of the greatest tragedies in human history. The skill is in maintaining an impact when the content is more conventional.

And this is where "Lee" fails.

Let's start with Kate Winslet. There is a leaden quality to her performance that brings the energy down in every scene. This may be appropriate in the theatre of war, but she lacks charisma in her normal life too.

Far too old and serious to convince as a seductive ingenue in the early scenes (despite taking her top off), and burdened by an awkward performance from Alexander Skarsgaard as Roland Penrose, her background story is hard to believe in. Which is remarkable when you consider that by the time she met Penrose, she had been a successful fashion model, photographer and muse to some of the great artists of the 20th century. You'd assume she had something special about her, but whatever it was, Winslet doesn't capture it.

The scenes at Vogue magazine are truly cringeworthy, with Samuel Barnett doing a horrible parody of Cecil Beaton, while Andrea Riseborough plays editor Audrey Withers like a school matron who is well past her best years (she was in her mid-30s at the outbreak of war).

Winslet's lack of charm is evident in the early war scenes, where she is fighting to get access to the front line. I find it hard to believe that a former fashion model who was still in her 30s would choose extreme seriousness as a way of getting what she wanted.

Apparently Andy Samberg has got some praise for his "straight" role. But the bar is not set very high and the performance is no more than average.

Josh O'Connor - who is having a moment right now thanks to "Challengers" - also struggles to find any character in his role as an "interviewer" at the end of Lee Miller's life.

The supporting cast in general is stronger than the leads - Marion Cotillard, Noemie Merlant and James Murray all stand out in small roles.

I suspect the fundamental problem here is that Winslet wanted to tell the authorised version of Miller's story. The one that casts her as a serious photojournalist, rather than a society girl and bon vivant. And in doing so, she has drained all the life from it.

PS I have never seen a film with so many production companies involved. The credits for executive producers are longer than those for the cast!

"West Side Story 2021" simply isn't as good as "West Side Story 1961".

That's really all that needs to be said. But IMDB now insist on long reviews. So here are a few extra observations:

1. Rachel Zegler and Ariana DeBose are both really good - Zegler in particular is a talented singer, DeBose shines in the dancing.

2. Ansel Elgort is lifeless. There is not a single moment where he displays any obvious passion or energy. He is badly miscast as the lead male.

3. You can see how Spielberg was influenced by the strong colours of the original but chose to soften them and apply them to a (slightly) more realistic cityscape. Unfortunately the result is washed out, with the performers and the backgrounds blending in to one, ruining the impact of the large-scale dance numbers.

4. Having said that, a few of the song/dance numbers bear comparison with the original - "Officer Krupke", "America" and "I Feel Pretty" stand out.

5. Although Rita Moreno performs well (better than many of the young cast!) her inclusion seems like a sentimental decision.

6. The decision to fluidly mix Spanish and heavily-accented English can be confusing.

7. Pacing can be very slow. There are long gaps between songs, especially at the start of the film.

Just watch the original.

PS I don't know how conscious Spielberg was of the prior criticism of Natalie Wood being cast as Maria, but it's quite awkward to see that half of the "Puerto Rican" cast have limited Hispanic heritage in this version as well.

I had low expectations for Trap if I'm honest. M. Night Shyamalan is probably more famous for the inconsistency of his output these days, and casting your own daughter as a key character is about as "nepo" as it gets.

But there is actually a lot that is good about Trap. If you were hoping for a tense, claustrophobic thriller with a few twists and turns, it delivers.

I was particularly impressed with the scenes during Saleka's concert. Not only is it a very realistic rendition of a modern mega-gig, Josh Hartnett does a great job of playing a man who is watching everything around him and plotting his next move. Ariel Donoghue is very convincing as his teenage daughter as well.

I was equally impressed by the later scenes where smartphones play a key role in a hostage situation.

There are a couple of situations that rely too much on good luck to play out the way that Hartnett wants, and Shyamalan tries to include a couple of twists too many (the last scenes start to lose some plausibility) - but it's a tight film at around 1h 40m, and an entertaining one at that.

Perhaps I came into this show with the wrong idea but I'm half way through the first season and I just can't get into it.

You can tell that it is artfully and expensively made, with high production values, the odd moment of visual fantasy, and a big name cast.

But I thought it would be fun. It's not. And that is a bit of a problem when you have Steve Martin and Martin Short in the cast.

There is the odd moment of wit and humour but it is spread pretty thinly. The tempo overall is slow - almost tragic. And I don't mean because of the "Murders in the Building" - I mean because of the protagonists own lives.

Another issue for me is Selena Gomez's performance. She is really lifeless and distracted and has this flat tone of voice that kills every scene she is in. I don't know what she was aiming for, but she doesn't hit the mark at all.

OMITB ticks the boxes as a murder mystery show but the casting of Martin and Short is wasted.

Three seasons in, and "How to with John Wilson" is still one of the most uniquely entertaining pieces of television ever.

What superficially seems like a random combination of neurotic behaviour and random street footage is actually one of the most cleverly crafted bits of comedy out there. It will certainly make you laugh, and at times it will shock and disgust you, but it also makes you reflect on how we all fit in to this crazy world we have created for ourselves.

It's obvious that a lot more planning goes into this show than you are supposed to think. And that some sequences are set up. But the Season 3 episode "How to Watch Birds" takes it too far and mocks the audience for believing anything in the show is real, by including a special effects-driven fictional event. It's a real black mark against the creators. In fact Season 3 as a whole doesn't have the elegance of the previous 2 and is less satisfying.

I still rate the show highly but I hope that jokes at the expense of the audience don't become a regular theme.

Thanks to solid comic performances (particularly from Lily Tomlin and Dabney Coleman), "9 to 5" still stands up today.

Even though the workplace the comedy is set in has changed immeasurably - ingrained sexism is thankfully a thing of the past in the developed world, and the 9 to 5 is a thing of the past for office workers - you can still recognise the injustices of today, where the devious and the incompetent get ahead because of their ruthless manipulation of others.

Highlights are the fantasy sequences where the three brow-beaten women think about revenge, the surprisingly dark body-snatching sequence, and the huge improvements in productivity when Coleman is away from his desk.

Sterling Hayden has a cameo in the final scene as the Chairman of the Board, and has a great aside when he sees how effective a modern workplace can be. Job-sharing, flexible working and day-care all meet with his approval. Equal pay? Not so much.

This is no "Poor Things". This is no "The Favourite". This is Yorgos Lanthimos taking the opportunity to go back to his (bad) old ways.

"Kinds of Kindness" is three short-ish films performed by a stellar ensemble (Emma Stone, Jesse Plemons. Willem Dafoe, Margaret Qualley et al).

They are beautifully filmed, as you would expect, with warm colours, a languid pace and clever camera movement.

They are also very strange.

If you are familiar with Roald Dahl's short stories for adults, many of which were filmed as "Tales of the Unexpected", you'll get the idea. Except Lanthimos ladles on a lot more sex and gore.

The first story is by far the best. Jesse Plemons plays a man who is far too dependent on the whims of his mentor. It's tense, atmospheric, and creepy without lapsing into absurdity. 8/10.

The second, where Plemons' police officer is concerned about the return of his wife (Stone) after she goes missing overseas, is by far the weakest. It's totally over the top with gratuitous sex and gore, which ends up obscuring any of the possible meaning. 3/10.

The third story, where Emma Stone plays a cult member in search of a woman with special powers, is by far the most "trailer-friendly". If you've seen Emma Stone doing a funky dance and driving a muscle car, that's from this one. It bears no relationship to the story, which is just flat, and the impact of the final revelation is ruined by a dumb post-credits scene. 5/10.

As in "The Lobster", Lanthimos asks his actors to deliver their lines in a monotone with minimal changes of expression. It's a tough challenge for an actor, and none of them are able to shine. Plemons, Qualley and Hong Chau cope better than the rest, Dafoe only seems comfortable in the first story.

The titles of each story - which refer to a friend of Lanthimos' who makes a brief appearance in each one - betray the project's indulgence. As does it's near 3 hour length. And unfortunately, despite moments of brilliance, that indulgence robs us of a satisfying film.

I loved this film when I was a kid. The theme tune and the car chase in the middle are seared on my brain.

And re-watching it at least 35 years later is a pleasant surprise. This family-friendly spy comedy still holds up.

Highlights are Barbara Carrera as a striking femme fatale, Oliver Reed as a ruthless KGB boss, and of course the gadgets and chase scenes - even though my adult eyes now realise that the fleet of black "Porsche" cars used by the baddies had never been close to Stuttgart.

Launching the story with the concept of Michael Crawford's "Condorman" being a comic book hero works really well - in fact the storytelling is surprisingly strong. Equally enjoyable are the many European locations used, a high quality document of the era before computers ruined everything.

However Michael Crawford's leading role doesn't quite hit the mark. The accent isn't right, and there are several occasions where he seems to be on the brink of saying "Ooh Betty!".

It's a cliche to say "they don't make films like this any more". But it is true. This is a family-friendly film, yet there are no children in the cast. In terms of content it is only one step milder than a Bond film of the same era. That's almost unheard of now. And that's a shame. Because I enjoyed the laughs, the action and the tension when I was little. And I still enjoy them now.

Unfortunately Disney seem to have wiped films like this from their history. It's not available to stream. And the DVD copy I picked up is from a ropey old master that probably dates from the VHS era, and doesn't even use widescreen properly. This deserves a proper reissue so that the current generation can enjoy it as much as I did.

Tom Ripley and Philip Greenleaf are a pair of scoundrels making a nuisance of themselves in Italy. You wouldn't trust either of them with your wallet. You definitely wouldn't trust either of them with your daughter.

Greenleaf has lots of money and a beautiful girlfriend. Ripley wants what Greenleaf has. But even someone as ruthless as Ripley finds it hard to get away with his lies and deceit...

Elegant, tense and sensual in a way that Hollywood productions of the era wouldn't dare to be, "Plein Soleil" is everything you could want from a classic thriller. 1960s Italy is beautiful, as are the cast (Alain Delon's good looks make Ripley's appeal easier to understand). But Delon's performance goes far beyond his appearance, switching chameleon-like between charming friend and calculated criminal, spotting opportunities and swiftly taking advantage of them.

There is great artistry in the Rene Clement's film-making. Unexpected close-ups of eyes watching events unfold. A boat scene in heavy seas that is on the edge of disaster. Overheard conversations. Silent hiding places.

It may be over 60 years old but "Plein Soleil" masters the screen thriller.

"Black Panther" benefits from being a stand-alone movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. This allows it to have a really clear story arc without the disruption of stars from other franchises dropping in.

And it is a very enjoyable storyline. Part spy thriller, part sci-fi spectacular, part historic battle, it keeps you engaged throughout a T'Challa (Chadwick Boseman) accedes to the crown of Wakanda and has to keep his homeland's secrets safe and its enemies at bay.

It's at its best when it's being serious, and most of the cast are very good in that respect, Boseman and Lupita Nyong'o being particularly convincing.

But when it tries to add humour, it fails. Letitia Wright is good when she is playing a proud family member or a scientist, but her wisecracks fall flat. Martin Freeman is badly miscast as a CIA agent with a terrible accent which makes all his scenes awkward.

As with all superhero movies, the powers work against the drama. The Black Panther suit is simply too strong, and most action scenes end up with high speed destruction and an excess of CGI animation (the final "underground" battle being a particular offender). One early scene in particular has a build up like a Bond film, but instead of gaining an advantage through sharp wordplay or a well-timed punch, the Wakandans engage Hulk mode. I much, much prefer the scenes where "normal" people are fighting (the final "overground" battle being a great example of this).

Visually the film is great, with the colourful combination of tribal-inspired outfits and futuristic tech on screen.

Overall a refined superhero adventure that doesn't quite have the spark of greatness.

PS I do feel slightly uneasy about the use of accents. The cast is almost exclusively black American and British actors "putting on" an African accent. And one of the main baddies (played by Andy Serkis) is a white South African. It skirts along the edge of stereotypes - I think it just about gets away with it but it is a dangerous area to be in.

For a moment it seems like "Deadpool & Wolverine" will manage to get away with it's multiverse story. Raising it's eyebrow to the idea that every world has a hero that is fundamental to its survival. Hence the search for a new Logan.

But no. It doesn't. Just like all the multiverse movies that came before, it skips around abstract worlds, introducing unbelievable characters and situations, and destroying any possible drama.

But that's probably not why you watch a Deadpool movie. You watch it for the jokes, the smut and the fourth-wall breaks. Of which there are plenty. This installment also has a long list of cameo appearances, none of which disappoint, with a handful being true highlights of the film (I won't name names to avoid any spoilers).

Hugh Jackman plays Wolverine straight, with lots of slice-n-dice fight sequences. But he is definitely the support act rather than the co-lead. This film is all about Ryan Reynolds - or at least, whoever wears the red and black costume.

Back to the "story", Matthew McFadyen is OK as the first British baddie. Emma Corrin is really poor as the second British baddie and never manages to find the right tone.

To sum up, the laughs are there, the action is good but repetitive, and the story isn't even worth trying to make sense of. Which is why this film isn't a match for the previous two Deadpool adventures.

For the last of the five Planet of the Apes movies that were pumped out in rapid succession in the late 60s/early 70s, the producers go back to basics.

Gone are the cityscapes of "Escape" and "Conquest", replaced by the familiar post-apocalyptic scenes of the first two movies.

Only a few years after the events of "Conquest", man has destroyed civilisation in a nuclear war, and now the apes reign supreme.

However the gorillas are unhappy with the rule of Caesar the chimpanzee (still played by Roddy McDowall), and are plotting to seize power.

Meanwhile a mysterious group of survivors plan their own revenge after the apes discover their secret hiding place beneath the devastated city (obviously inspired by the similar group from "Beneath").

The outdoor locations and mangled cityscapes help this installment to feel more cinematic, and there is certainly more action and more conflict.

But credibility has gone completely out of the window. The original film suggested the rise of the apes had taken centuries. According to this film, it has taken 12 years, in which time they have learned to speak and take on duties based on their species, with humanity fully under their control.

Casting is suspect, and it suffers from one of the most ridiculous final battle scenes I've seen. I haven't been to military school but even I can tell that walking slowly towards a well-armed barricade is a suicide mission.

"Battle" is a hodge-podge of ideas we've already seen without any spark to make them stand out.

Aside from a handful of creative moments (the hidden cult in "Beneath", the arrival of the apes from the future in "Escape", and the vision of a dystopian city in "Conquest"), none of the 1970s sequels are worth watching. Stick to the 1968 original which is deservedly a sci-fi classic.

"Thelma" is a joy to watch. The story of a ninety-three year old woman who decides to take matters into he own hands after being scammed successfully combines multiple genres and is backed up by great performances.

Anyone who has an older relative (or is older themselves) will recognise the challenges posed by modern technology. Thelma is probably the first film to makes closing down a pop-up ad on a computer seem as challenging and critical as defusing a bomb in Fort Knox.

But we also recognise how easy it is to be exploited by people who are willing to take advantage of that technology. And we recognise the fears, the loneliness and the loss of abilities in our later years. Thelma captures all of these moments too, with humour, compassion and a degree of tragedy.

June Squibb does a fantastic job in the lead role. Richard Rowntree impresses as Ben, the friend that Thelma doesn't really want to spend time with at first but who gives her the support she needs to complete her mission. Fred Hechinger is also good as Danny, Thelma's 20-something grandson who has been looking after her while he tries to find direction in his own life.

Funny, touching and gripping, Thelma is worth seeking out.

Twenty years on from "Escape from the Planet of the Apes", a lot has changed on Earth. A virus has killed all the cats and dogs, leading humanity to first take monkeys as pets, and then train them as servants.

Meanwhile young intelligent chimpanzee Caesar (Roddy McDowall), who was hidden away by circus owner Armando (Ricardo Montalban), is forced out into the open.

Once again, this is a really solid premise for a new instalment in the franchise and the story of an uprising among the apes develops with pace.

The clean, concrete lines of the future world (actually an office development) combine well with the crisp uniforms worn by the apes and the citizens to create an effective impression of a 1991 where no human needs to do menial work, and where the authorities are always watching.

The Planet of the Apes films always touch on the ethics of mankind, and this one is no exception, using the enslavement of the apes as an allegory for the civil rights movement, and showing how even a hero is not immune to the corrupting influence of power.

There is however a lack of plausibility in the speed at which Apes have been domesticated (after only 20 years they are operating simple tools and can understand spoken instructions), which makes the final confrontation unbelievable. The scope of the film is small as well, with all the activity taking place in the same plaza and in a handful of interiors - it feels closer to a TV episode than a movie at times. The narrative also veers from the timeline suggested by the fossil records from the original film.

Despite these weaknesses, overall this is an entertaining dystopian sci-fi flick.