George Tait

Motherland was a bitter, slightly twisted comedy with a plethora of characters to love, like or hate. Amandaland takes one of its best characters, moves her to a less salubrious part of London and softens her a bit. There are some funny moments and the performances are all, with the exception of the kids, very good. But it just wasn’t funny or edgy enough. And a lot of it didn’t really ring true. Worth a watch but it simply isn’t nearly as good as motherland. I’m hoping that if there’s a second series, it will improve.

Several reviewers have described this film as being somewhat stupid, far- fetched, ridiculous, unbelievable etc… They’re all correct. There’s barely a plausible minute within this movie, But, come on, everyone involved in the making of Carry-on would have been well aware of its deliberate shortcomings. It’s not meant to be realistic. It’s not meant to make you think. It’s there to entertain. And it mostly succeeds in that single aim. If carry- on is to be compared to Die Hard, prospective viewers should know that it’s not quite in the same league. It doesn’t have Bruce Willis rushing around in a very well fitting vest, for a start. It doesn’t have any actor comparable to Alan Rickman either. Jason Bateman does his best but…, I just really enjoyed it, especially the second half of it. The good guys triumph over the bad ones. There’s some funny dialogue. Two memorable standout scenes. And a case full of novichok. If you want to watch a movie that will stay with you forever, this ain’t the movie for you. You won’t remember it 24 hours later. But if you want to watch something that lifts your mood for a couple of hours, even if there is no ripped hunk in a vest to get your pulse racing, this is the film for you.

I watched all of the Omen films when I was a youngster. I watched them in the wrong order; the second one first, the third one second and the first one last. So I had to piece the story together in a different way than most viewers who were invested in the franchise. The first two films were absurd but strangely thrilling. The third one was an absolute turkey, more notable for the first sightings of Ruby Wax and Niles Crane from Frasier than the contemptuous content of the film itself. I watched The First Omen, I suppose, for nostalgic reasons. I’m not religious and am not remotely bothered about storytelling alterations. A work of fiction is a work of fiction. It shouldn’t matter if writers and directors mix things up a little. The First Omen is a horror film of sorts. If you’re looking for lots of gore and bloodshed, you probably won’t find enough of either here. But what you will find is an angry film about how women are constantly held back in securing autonomy over their own bodies. The other films in the franchise are principally about the rise and fall of the Antichrist. There is no subtext in any of them. The First Omen is a different ‘beast’ altogether. It’s well directed. Some of the acting is a bit camp( Bill Nighy is magnificently hammy, as ever) but there’s nobody in the film that comes close to reaching the depths of Gregory Peck( surely the worst actor, like, ever). So the film has some substance. It does lose its footing a little in the final few reels and Charles dance might wonder what the point was of him being in the film at all. But it’s definitely worth your time.