MartianTom's reviews

Okay... time to correct some of the more negative reviews on here. Those that say things like 'bloated', 'overlong', 'too much dialogue, not enough action' and so on. I think a lot of these must come from viewers who are too much a product of the digital age - those who favour instant gratification, who don't want to spend too much time soaking up 'story', who prefer mindless action over engaging their brain a bit.

So, here's a review from someone with a fully-developed frontal lobe, and who loves heist movies (think 'Heat', 'The Town', 'Le Cercle Rouge', the original 'Den of Thieves'), and movies with a long enough play-time to allow you to fully immerse in both characters and story.

Wary of sequels, I admit I approached this with a lot of caution. So few movies have been able to pull it off well. The exceptions for me are 'Sicario: Day of the Soledado', 'Equalizer 2' (though not '3'), 'Aliens' and so on - movies that took familiar characters and situations, then played them to another level. For me, 'Den of Thieves: Pantero' easily falls into the 'exceptions' category. A good and fairly original plot, well-paced... and Big Nick back on full form. Gerard Butler has made some so-so movies - but he really delivers the goods in this franchise, and he doesn't disappoint in this outing.

I would have given it 10 if some of the other characters had been a bit more rounded out. But that was my only criticism. And those almost two-and-a-half hours of play-time didn't drag in the least for me. I enjoyed every minute of the ride.

I won't say any more. No need to give away any of the plot. Just sit down, watch... and enjoy. Enough said!

I've read many reviews of this film on IMDb, but have paid particular attention to those that have rated it lower. I can only guess that a lot of these have come from reviewers so generationally-detached from the events it portrays that they lack the real means of offering anything other than a criticism of pace, story-line, characterisation or plot dynamic. Maybe they expected more action, having been raised to expect this from war films. Maybe they expected less emotional involvement with the characters. Maybe the run time was a little long for people more used to the instant gratification offered by TikTok videos. Or maybe they were simply the wrong audience entirely for a film that delivers the impact it did on someone like me - the son of evacuees, and someone born not very long after the events the film portrays.

From my own experiences, and from the stories passed down to me from my parents and grandparents - people who actually lived through these times - this film captures so much. The period detail (including slang and common phrases, like 'All mouth and no trousers'), the emotional heft... and the sense, sadly long gone now, of people being brought together and helping one another in the spirit of common human suffering and endurance. Steve McQueen has tapped into this so well - obviously assisted as he has been by his knowledge of the film's admirable forebears: greats like 'We Dive at Dawn', 'The Sea Shall Not Have Them', 'This Happy Breed', 'Sink the Bismarck', 'The Cruel Sea', etc.

If you want a film that gives a gritty and realistic portrayal of life as it was then for ordinary working-class people, this is it.

So I say again, wholeheartedly: Fantastic job, Steve McQueen.

I've given it a 5, which feels about right. The production values are good, likewise the cinematography. And there's just enough content to keep the viewer engaged. Only just, though.

Essentially, this is a prime example of a Netflix serial that's been over-extended, and thereby stretched thin and a bit see-through. Four episodes, maybe even three, would have been enough. There's far too much drag in each episode, sub-plots that don't really add anything, and not really too much of a story to begin with. Also, the budgetary constraints imposed from having to fill six episodes were, to my mind, reflected in the choice of cast. The lead actor aside - she gave an excellent performance - most of the other performances were so-so, a bit second-rate, and in one particular case laughably awful (the London DI). Maybe, though - to give the actors their due - it could also be down to the fact that most of the characters were flat, cardboard-cut-out, cliched and under-developed. This is down to the writer.

As I said in the title... it's okay if you've exhausted all other options. Don't expect anything you haven't seen a dozen times before, though.

I've watched every film in the Alien franchise several times over the years. Each of them, in their own ways, has something unique to bring - and each of them, in their own ways, still succeeds in all the essential stakes: the characterisation, the performances, the cinematography, the quality of the writing and direction, the effects... and that sense of jeopardy that grows and grows, like the alien monster itself, almost from the first scene.

So I had no hesitation actually buying this instead of renting it, given the strength of its heritage. It's twenty quid, sadly, that I'll never see again. I'd have been better off putting it on a 500-to-1 outsider in a pram race.

Within 5 minutes, I knew how bad it was. Dreadful dialogue, trying to be so sharp and cool in appealing to the Gen-Z TikTok-aholics who'll doubtlessly make up its main audience. I think it was actually written by one of them. A teen, certainly. Either that or they just picked up a bunch of street kids from South London and got them to improvise all the way through it. Dreadful, empty, dull characters with not a single one to feel sympathy for or root for. No sense at all of drama or jeopardy. And, given the decades of advances in CGI, AI and other film-making tech since the original (which holds its own even now), this still managed to look like it was filmed in a warehouse on an industrial estate in Benfleet.

40 minutes was enough for me... and I only got that far because I was hoping to see some of these dumb-clucks smashed to bits by the monsters and at least find some sense of my moneysworth that way. But no... I couldn't even make it that far.

How the hell can Ridley Scott allow his name to be attached to this heap of garbage? Does he need the money.

Cailiee Spaeney caught my eye in 'Civil War' as an upcoming talent to watch out for. But she was completely wasted in this. And she was the only talent in it. And that includes not only cast, but crew too.

I implore all Alien franchise devotees... please... just pretend this one doesn't exist.

You won't miss anything.

I've followed Taron Egerton over the years and have learned to have great respect for him as an actor. Through roles such as in 'Eddie the Eagle', 'Kingsman' and - perhaps especially - 'Rocketman', he's shown off his huge talents in so many ways. He's versatile, he's vulnerable, he's strong. He can betray an emotion in a single facial gesture or physical tic. Without doubt, for my money, he's one of the best actors of his generation. Which is why, whenever I now see his name attached to a project in whatever capacity, I know I'm guaranteed the goods.

Such was the case with this brilliant mini-series. I saw the blurb on Apple TV+ and read the synopsis on IMDb, but was unconvinced as I'd read similar on so many of these mini-series before. But then I saw his name, not only as main star but as one of the Executive Producers - and that was all I needed to convince me to give it a go.

I was not disappointed. Taron, once again, has affirmed my faith in his abilities and his project choices.

I don't need to say anything further about the series - except that the pace is pitch-perfect, likewise the other casting choices (especially the equally fine Greg Kinnear).

Don't bother to read any other reviews. Just go watch, allow yourself to be sucked in... and enjoy.

I've read many books and seen many films about the trench warfare of the First World War - from Sebastian Faulks' excellent 'Birdsong' to Sam Mendes's '1917'. All of them have captured aspects of the horrors of the situation - especially the Faulks novel. But rarely have I seen a film that brings the horror, the anxiety and the pain of it all so viscerally to life as 'Journey's End'.

My maternal grandfather served in France in World War One. He was gassed on the Somme. He survived to come home - but his health, both physical and mental, was affected for the rest of his foreshortened life. He died in his sixties - already a man who seemed many years older than that. Sadly, I never knew him. And what I know about his wartime experiences are just the basic details already mentioned, as he never spoke much about them. But watching this film helps me to understand.

It also serves as a reminder of how these extreme situations can also be representative of life outside of war. The class structures; the inequalities; the elite making decisions at the expense of the underlings. And the toll it takes on all of us. And the ultimate futility underlying it all. Not just war, but existence itself.

This is one I shall definitely watch again. Many times.

I almost knew what to expect when I saw who was in this movie, then saw the pretty average rating on IMDb. Basically, I knew it would be a winner.

I wasn't wrong. There's a lot I could say, but I'll trust that other discerning critics will have already said enough. So I'll just say two things.

Firstly, if you're looking for an easy-ride action flick that you can slouch back and enjoy as you shovel up the popcorn, then go find another brainless product from the McDonald's-like Marvel franchise. If you hate human drama that means you have to engage on a higher level than simply wanting to see someone killed in a spectacular fashion, then go find another daft Jason Statham or Liam Neeson revenge flick. If you have the attention span of a fly and the emotional maturity of a 5-year-old, go watch one of the latest Disney animations.

Secondly, if none of the above applies.... then watch this movie.

Simple as that.

I consider myself something of a cineaste, and I've seen everything there is to see: the outstanding, the good, the bad, the ugly, the indifferent. I know a great movie from an average flick or a pile of crap.

Until now, I've always thought that the best series ever produced have been 'Six Feet Under', 'Peaky Blinders', 'Manhunt: Unabomber' and 'Mare of Easttown.' But now this comes along and blows it all out of the water in just one single short season.

Everything about this hits the spot. The actors, the performances, the story-line, the pace, the script, the direction, the cinematography... even the decision to film it all in magnificent 'film-noir' monochrome.

This is how it's done, folks - pure and simple. I don't need to say any more. Just go bathe in this cinematic and dramatic brilliance.

I was looking forward to an absorbing and intelligent dramatisation of the events leading up to the infamous interview, where a Royal prince hammered several more nails into the coffin of the mystique of Royalty. I was looking forward once again to seeing this over-privileged, distasteful person squirm and sweat (which, of course, he doesn't do!) under the spotlight of a properly loaded interrogation.

Instead, I got 30 minutes (as much as I could manage) of undergrad level 'clever-clever' visual stylisation, grossly overwrought 'acting' between a bunch of 'I'm going to be best in this scene' luvvie-duvvie prima donnas (Gillian Anderson aside, respectfully), and a script which couldn't decide whether it wanted to be sub-'The Thick of It' satire or third-rate wet Sunday afternoon drama.

Just awful. The actual interview is better than this, and that's excruciating enough. I'm sure attention-deficit smartphone-fixated Gen Zers will love it.

I think this film deserves a bit more of a positive appraisal than its low score suggests it's getting. Several reviews - even the better ones - have noted that it's 'slow' or 'slow-moving'. Well, it is if you come into it expecting something along the lines of a Jason Statham or Liam Neeson hitman flick. But in terms of what this really is - a character study of a man facing up to mortality and the events that have shaped his life - then I think the pace is pretty much perfect.

I have to admit that I love films like this, where there isn't necessarily any need to keep on top of complex plot twists or location shifts, but where I can instead just settle down with a simple general story and follow the character wherever he leads me through it - and enjoy watching the true depth of his 'character' gradually emerge. I couldn't help but be reminded of Anton Corbijn's excellent 'The American', starring George Clooney. A very similar set-up: a hitman sent to a job that becomes a kind of holiday as well as a preparation for the ultimate task - but with a background sense of intrigue and suspicion about the whole situation, and who he can trust. Like that film, too, it needs an actor with a certain gravity to hold the attention. In this case, Ian McShane is the perfect choice.

I think, too, it deserves repeated viewings to appreciate both the subtle as well as the very obvious development of themes. Family is certainly important. The idea of a 'mother' always being there for certain characters, grounding them in the ordinary and mundane in particular ways, suggests the presence of meaningful connections in a world where they otherwise don't seem to exist any longer. And fatherhood, too. This comes out in Wilson's relationship with Gloria, and also with the young boy Max at the hotel - whose own father (and mother, come to that) is notably never seen, but only heard in snores or shouts. Max seems permanently abandoned to his own devices, usually sitting outside his parents' hotel room door playing alone. This set-up - with the friendship Max develops with Wilson - initially seemed unrealistic. How could parents be so neglectful of their child as to leave him alone and unattended for so much of the time - prey, say, to people like Wilson, who could so easily have entirely different motives? And if a child of mine ever came back to me and said that he'd won 30 Euros in a bet with a stranger on a beach, I think I'd do a bit more than simply suggest he give it back. As a plot device to show character depth, though, this relationship worked for me. It's clear that Wilson could, in a different set of circumstances and with a different career choice, have been a good father - and certainly more like the kind of father that Max (and, indeed, Gloria) needs. With this realisation, I think, we can't help but be sympathetic for Wilson - this rather lonely and isolated man, facing perhaps his final few years of life, unable to entirely relax into what he sees as a 'bit of a holiday' (we only see that black, heat-absorbing suit off once - in the spa pool scene), and demonstrating so much unfulfilled potential in other ways.

The climax, when it comes - and the long and gradual lead-up, I think, adds to its quick and sudden impact - is genuinely moving. Wilson is shown in all of his colours: the cold-blooded, unflinching killer... and the tender and vulnerable man: in essence, the loving father underneath it all. The years and experiences have broken through the emotional barriers he's striven to hold up for so long in order to do his job.

I'll definitely be coming back to this film. And I'd definitely recommend it to anyone who looks for more than just fast-paced blood and action for their 'hitman movie' satisfaction.

Once again (as so often nowadays, given the viewing demographics of sites like Netflix), you have to ignore the reviews from the Marvel generations. Easy enough to spot. Low ratings. Reviews that contain words like SLOOOW and BOOORING, with the extra vowels and capitalisations for added emphasis. This kind of language and typography seems to be the only response such 'reviewers' are able to muster, given their obvious limitations in other respects. I have ADHD, but my attention didn't waver from the moment I pressed 'Play'. I didn't even pause it to make a drink, I was so riveted.

Here is a film that jerks us out of our comfort zones and forces us to consider the lessons of history that, as the film's initial monologue makes plain, aren't the ones we're taught in school. Here is a film that reminds us - why do we constantly need reminding? - to look beyond labels and categorisations and go straight to the only one that will ever make any sense: human being.

Necessary viewing... in spite of what the kids might say.

...or have we created it already without actually realising it?

First of all, it's probably a good idea to discount any IMDb reviews that rate this film less than 5, because these will generally be from people (I've checked!) who either think this is paranoid conspiracy nonsense that would never be allowed to happen... or who simply don't want to imagine it happening because they're so deeply embedded in the 'world' the film portrays that it would undermine everything they have been brought up and conditioned to accept without question. Upton Sinclair once said 'Never expect a man to believe something if his salary depends upon his not believing it.' The same can be said for this. If your life is so connected now that you could not cope otherwise, you don't want anyone pointing out the serious downsides of what you're buying into. And before anyone pipes up with 'But we do have a choice', they need to really think about what they're saying. Okay... you can choose to opt out of the hyper-connected life, disable all of your social media accounts, disable the internet on your phone. Go on, then - do it.

Go on.

You have a choice.

Don't you?

Don't you?

So... maybe you don't, after all. At the time of my writing, this film was already seven years old. In seven years, the tech (and our dependence on it) has moved on enormously. Seven years ago, you didn't routinely see children as young as 7 or 8 going to school with smartphones. Now you do. At one point in the film, a medical technician mentions that chips are inserted into the bones of children at birth so that they can always be tracked. At that time, it was still a very far-fetched idea. Now, though - as the phone has become more and more an essential part of most people's lives - we have to ask how much longer it will be before that idea of chip insertion (at least in consenting adults in the early stages) happens. How much longer are we going to want to walk around all day effectively hindered - disabled, you might say - in our actions and movements by the need to hold onto a device? Just look around you now, when you go out. How many people do you see not interacting with their phone in some way... even if it's just to do that very old-fashioned thing and call someone up for a chat? Hardly anyone.

The film is good at showing how we've all be sucked in by the perceived benefits of this tech: instant access to information, wherever we happen to be (as long as there's good wi-fi or signal strength); being able to keep track of our loved ones at every moment of the day; being able to share every moment of our lives - the highs and lows - to hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people, most of whom we will never meet or know properly. The ironies are there in all of those 'benefits': the loss of privacy, the capability of being tracked wherever we go and whatever we do. Never before in history have the creations of a few dozen middle-class guys in Silicon Valley been able to effectively control the thoughts, actions and lives - and yes, I do mean control - of billions of people. Aldous Huxley had it so right when he prophesised that we won't feel repressed by this level of surveillance, or by the tools through which it happens. Instead, we'll willingly accept them, pay large sums for them, cosset them, love them... and never be able to imagine our lives again without them.

If you don't believe that, then try looking at it like this. If your government made it mandatory for every person in the country to have a bracelet or anklet permanently attached to them so that their every move could be tracked and registered, wouldn't there be an outcry about invasion of privacy, and violations of civil liberties and human rights? Sure there would. But what do we have with the smartphone? And not only does it track our moves, it also contains all of our personal data, financial details, medical conditions, thoughts and feelings, beliefs... and those of our contacts, too. And we think it's great, and don't offer up any resistance at all. Shows how remarkably well this has all been sold on us, doesn't it? And 'sold' is the right word, given the business model of all the social media platforms. Your attention is their income. As the old saying in Silicon Valley goes: 'If you're not paying for the product, you are the product.'

The crunch will come, of course, when the networks shut down or are taken over - as has more recently been dramatised in the excellent 'Leave The World Behind'. What happens when hackers, intent on chaos, domination and destruction, take control? What happens when the satellites are taken out? What happens when the 'connection' suddenly... vanishes? As the Ethan Hawke character says so pertinently in the latter film: 'Without my cell phone and GPS, I'm lost. I'm a useless man.' These are fictions, of course. But what is good fiction for if not to offer us the ability to reflect on the facts of our own lives?

Thinking people everywhere - including those, like myself, who may have initially bought into all of this because of the positives it seemed to offer - will see this as a warning to us all. What we're embracing here could just be checkmate on humanity.

Everyone else will just carry on, dismissing people such as myself - who have chosen not to have a smartphone - as dinosaurs. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm tech-savvy and internet-savvy. But solely on my own terms, during my own set times, when I'm at home on my PC. Otherwise, I'm free of it. Free to enjoy my privacy. Free to go for long walks and experience the real world, to daydream, to think. To disengage completely. And the clues are there in some of the responses I got from friends when I shut down my social media accounts. 'What's wrong? Where are you?' The subtext is often 'What have you got to hide?'

Nothing. Rather, I have something very important and precious to preserve. My privacy.

And my sanity.

I was initially intrigued by the premise of someone faking their own death in order to make off with hundreds of millions of dollars: the level of planning, deception and manipulation involved in being able to carry off such an exit scam. And then there was the idea of seeing all these entitled young, not-so-clever-after-all, ripped-off people crying into their $500 a bottle champagne as they recounted their woeful tales of losing (almost) everything.

But ultimately, I found the spectacle so nauseating that I had to turn off a half-hour before the final - so I gather - abrupt, providing-no-answers ending.

I suppose Tong was the one who really got under my skin. The poor thing - left with no choice but to sell his apartment for $400k. And then, by his own admission, being so anxious to get rich quickly ("No one wants to get rich slow") that he greedily invests all of it into something that looks like its going to leave him never having to work again. The long, lingering shots of his mournful face as he talks about his anxiety and panic attacks (oh, how my heart bleeds!) when he realises that all of that money might be gone... they were really the only uplifting moments for me.

I've no sympathy for any of these people. Basically, I hope they have been scammed out of everything.

Maybe it'll teach them a little sense of proportion and humility.

Somehow, though, I doubt it.

If you thought that nuclear war, climate change or AI represented the biggest threats to the world - think again. That's the message of this gripping documentary that tells the story of the most daring and audacious bank heist in history - perpetrated not by a bunch of masked figures with automatic weapons and getaway vans, but by a small group of sophisticated hackers and other hired fixers, and started by a simple malware attachment in an email. They got clean away with less than 1/10th of the billion intended. But that's still a vast amount of money for a single job, and more than enough to fund future and increasingly sophisticated crimes.

And if that's what a small group of criminal hackers can do, think what a nation state can achieve if it wants to bring down the entire financial, transportation, communication, energy, industrial, commercial and other essential utility infrastructures of its enemies - essentially to make them grind completely to a halt, putting millions or billions of people at risk. Then look at the world as it is now, with the increasing east-west polarisations of the major powers in the new Cold War. Every reason to be very afraid indeed.

Essential viewing.

Actually, you can leave the last two words off the title of this review, and the remainder will say enough. Huge ones!

Ah... once again, I was conned by the 'above 6' rating on IMDb. All of those above 5 can really only have been given by reviewers for whom computer games or Marvel films give a satisfying level of dramatic engagement and plot complexity.

To be fair, I've always rather liked Russell Crowe as an actor, feeling that he always brings a certain gravitas to his roles. He was certainly the best thing in this film - apart from The Cult's 'She Sells Sanctuary' on the soundtrack at the beginning. Sadly, though, even an actor of his quality couldn't save this abysmal mess - the product of a juvenile script and a director who thought that some whizz-bang CGI set pieces would make up for lack of plot, character development, and just about everything else. Every cliche you could expect was here - including the 'jump scares' which weren't 'jumpy' at all, given that we've seen them so many times before. Then the others, in predictable order: the possessed child, the slamming doors, the leaping cupboards, the bouncing beds. And why must demons always have that deep, guttural voice - part tenor, part wolf, part lion growling through a megaphone? How about an occasional castrato falsetto?

On the subject of characters - there wasn't a single sympathetic one amongst the whole lot. I just wanted all of them to die, and horribly - perhaps with the exception of Crowe's. The performances - apart from moments with Crowe's, and perhaps the boy's - were uniformly terrible. Who cast this lot? Who scripted their words? Who gave the whole thing the green light in the first place? As a drama, it's laughable. As a comedy, it's unfunny. I don't think it really knows what it is. Nor does anyone involved in it.

Give it a miss and watch the original 'The Exorcist' instead. Once you've seen that, you've seen all you need to - and you can leave rubbish like this to the kids.

Well, you know... as someone who loved the original, but has hated every franchise episode since, I have to say I really enjoyed this. So I thought I'd try to bump the average rating up a bit. I was going to give it a 7.5, but as I can't do fractions here, I thought it only fair to round up instead of down.

How many of us over our lifetimes have felt aggrieved at the way money seems to sweep in and displace the known and loved for many previous generations? Neighbourhoods that become unaffordable to current residents due to gentrification schemes. Family businesses destroyed by faceless, distant corporations.

That's the subtext in this film. Here, the invading forces are the young, entitled, vacuous legions of social media 'influencers' who make more money in a couple of videos than you may have made in a year, or even a lifetime. The foodies, the beauty experts, the therapists... even those whose only 'skill' seems to be playing computer games, streaming themselves playing them, then lapping up the advertising revenue thanks to the hits from their millions of fans.

So when an expensive car-load of such young, newly-enriched people pitch up in a remote Texas town - full of their media-savvy arrogance, their empty assumptions, their instant judgements - and start acting like they own the place (so crass and gross is their sense of entitlement), I think I can be a forgiven for looking forward (vicariously) to the ensuing bloodbath. It's no spoiler to say that I'm not disappointed.

There are some great moments in this movie that made me laugh out loud. Not just the cutting and slicing, but the knowing nods to the obsessions of the smartphone age. When, for instance, Leatherface boards the busload of 'followers' with chainsaw revving, what's the first thing they do? Hold up their phones to film the spectacle to ensure their instant hits on Instagram, Youtube or whatever. I've actually myself witnessed a serious car crash, where a couple of bystanders stopped to take photos on their phone before even thinking of dialing emergency services or seeing if they could help anyone.

So... in my view, well worth the watch if you feel the same way about these things. And if you just simply enjoy a good, gory slasher movie with some excellent set pieces to gratify your appetite.

Other reviewers have mentioned the lack of sympathetic characters in this. But there is one. The only one in the whole movie who demonstrates real, genuine emotion.

You'll have to watch it to find out who.

I watched Minder obsessively from the very first episode, only giving up when Dennis Waterman left. And this has always been my favourite episode. I remember first watching it when it was shown on ITV in February 1982 - 40 years ago almost to the day - and it has always stuck with me. The plot is ludicrous - but somehow almost believable, given what we know about the lifestyles of rock and pop stars.

On top of that, it was one of my first experiences of the phenomenal acting talent of Richard Griffiths, who later went on to create the memorable role of Uncle Monty in 1987's 'Withnail and I' - a cult film to end them all.

This is 1980s TV at its funniest and best. And George Cole, of course - as ever - is on absolutely top form.

Happy memories.

I can't praise this too much. Excellent script, performances, period detail - and, even if it isn't based on something that actually happened (the Legat/von Hartmann story, that is), then it's highly credible. So much more believable than the Churchill 'Darkest Hour' confection, which strained truth in so many ways.

It's just what I like in dramas of this sort: slow-build, but then the tension ratchets up to the truly explosive finale.

The rest, as they say, is history.

One of the best wartime dramas for a while. Comparable to 'The Imitation Game.' Don't miss it.

It baffles me how this risible, deeply-unfunny nonsense ever got the green light. What baffles me even more is that the likes of Leonardo DiCaprio, Meryl Streep and Jennifer Lawrence (among others) agreed to put their names to it. I mean... they must have read the script first, surely? Could they not see that it was pure Thanksgiving bird?

Finally, what baffles me is that the writer and director of the very excellent 'The Big Short' could really have allowed himself to slip so far. That was a genuinely brilliant, subtly-satiric drama. By comparison, this feels like something dreamed up by a bunch of weed-silly undergrads who are so certain of their cleverness and comedic talent that they ignore the fact that they actually need to be clever and funny to more people than just themselves.

For a really good drama in the same genre, go to 'Deep Impact' every time. Even the unintentionally-hilarious, deeply stupid 'Armageddon' is better than this.

So much about this to like. And so much to dislike, too.

The sense of claustrophobia and creeping horror - essentially, the jeopardy - from the first Alien movie is very well conveyed. The set design and cinematography are both fantastic.

A few bum notes, though - and pretty much solely to do with the cast. Sean Harris (the token Cockney boy) over-acts to the point where his character becomes laughable. And Kate Dickie (the token Scotty) is hopelessly miscast. Every line she delivers falls flat - especially 'Wow! Fifty-two thousand. Makes Everest look like a baby brother.' Terrible acting.

Overall, not bad. Just needed some better cast members.

Much has already been written about the dumbness of the kid. Yes, this is true. In fact, I found a lot of the characterisation to be flawed. The drama also relied too heavily on contrived situations and coincidence.

Having said all of that, I nonetheless found it compelling - and watched it all in one whole-day sitting. The reason for this goes beyond the plot contrivances and characterisation flaws. It's because of the way our feelings and emotions are tested all the way through: how we come to like characters that we can also despise; how we can see ourselves in similar situations with similar tests of love, loyalty, morality, and senses both of right and wrong and of justice. These are universal themes and issues. They challenge us to look at ourselves and our motives, and to question them where necessary. That is what good human drama is about.

So, despite the many flaws, this is still very much worth the journey.

Brilliant performances from all concerned, too.

I won't give any spoilers, but personally I feel that the 'murder' plot was contrived and implausible. For me, though, the family drama that was played out was compulsive and truthful - so much so that it had me in tears at times. I cannot fault any of the performances, and Kate Winslet has probably produced a career-best here.

I'm glad to hear that Season 2 looks likely, and look forward to seeing how the character of Mare develops. She is certainly in very capable hands.