UAPing UAPing

Being a son of the '80s and a Scouser (Google MJ Aintree), I used to try to dance like MJ and, like millions of others, I was inspired by MJ's music. I preferred The Beatles (of course), and it was them who drove me to learn music, but MJ had an ethereal way about him. Between his music videos, his press and his public image, who wasn't seduced by his image? I'm roughly the same age as the men who came forward in this here documentary, and as a child, I have very, very faint memories of being jealous of the likes of Culkin and Robson as well J-Chuck. And upon seeing those guys as kids in this documentary (now) - you can't help but think "that could have been me". This is the position that I feel that some of the corners of fandom experienced back then... but perhaps even more so now. The campaigns being run on behalf of the estate is a little distasteful, and the stoking of the fans to turn on anyone who speaks out is quite frankly neanderthal-like in nature. I find myself disgusted that I was 'one of them' when the original allegations surfaced. I didn't believe it, not one bit. I didn't vehemently protest on this, but I did get into discussions with people about how MJ was being extorted - as his solicitor said, 'He's an easy target', I swallowed it up. But over the years as I've grown older, become more wiser and learned more about the world around me, I began to critically analyse the situation with the little resources that I had... The one and only piece of evidence that fully turned me was when MJ's 'bits' were correctly identified in the trial. I'm sorry, but you don't hire a crack team of the best lawyers that money can buy in order to clear your name - but then, settle out of court when this evidence is provided. Moreover, how can a child know the colour and marks on a man's... well, bits? And then when you realise that there are very, very few instances where a person would be able to describe (or draw) the undercarriage of another person, add that to $20 million dollars (which bizarrely was the numerical amount of albums sold worldwide for 'Off The Wall), and well... I don't know, something clicked in me (even back then), and I began to disbelieve MJ's camp, and even began to listen to his songs in another light. The allegations pretty much ruined my vision of MJ, and this is it (no pun...intended...). This documentary lifts the lid on the grooming process involved and it also personifies both Robson and Safechiuk. It gives them a face, an accent, eyes... skin and hair. And I think this is where a lot of the fans in denial are. Their view on celebrity culture, as well as world view (in some cases), and above all MJ, are tarnished and these men are now real.. MJ 'taught' the music-listening public how to love him and his child-like nature is a trait which has rubbed off on certain folk. You can see it in many o' corner of the fanbase and denial is such an easy way out. Attacking the attacker is such an easy cop-out; and while I am confused about the timelines and motivations of Robson and Safechiuk's allegations (over the years), I wouldn't begin to comprehend the emotional effects of having had the experiences that they have had. There's a lot about MJ that we don't know. But the minute you let one person's legacy or fame get in the way of critical thinking, then you're no longer a fan, you're more of a zealot. MJ did lots for charity while bringing joy to many people's lives; but this isn't the legacy he left and it will not be the way he will be remembered for generations to come. Upon seeing these two men come forward and give their account, I kind of want to thank them for exposing a part of their life that directly puts perspective on a figure whose private life is now at odds with the public persona he and his camp had created in the '80s/'90s.. Do you remember the first person who told you the Tooth Fairy wasn't real? Do you remember how angry you were at them? Do you remember that feeling of being lied to? Now, imagine that was Michael Jackson for seven years (plus).

As a Scouser (look it up), none of the issues in this film affect me. However, I always enjoy Michael Moore films because he causes trouble and mixes it up a bit. The guy makes sense in a lower class kind of way and he seems like an okay guy. (I don't know him, but I'd like to interview him one day about his films being a budding documentarian myself). This isn't one of Michael's best, but everyone hates the Donald Trumpets, and this brings up a few things that I didn't know about the 'President'. It paints him as a neo-con puppet who likes incest and money - it shines the light on some of his cronies and how terrible the Democrats ran their campaign. It highlights a national travesty in the state of Michigan and gives you a bit of information on the youth of America - and their left-leaning movement. It gives you a bit of hope and fills you with a well of pride. I can see what Moore was going for here, and I wholeheartedly agree with most of the film. But I have to say, while I enjoyed the film, I just wanted a little bit more from it. Perhaps that is because I'm a Brit and that this does not affect me on a personal or professional level... But come on MM, you can do so much better than this!!! The question is - where does MM go from here? Where will he point his camera to now? I for one hope that MM comes back with a screamer of a follow-up, because while he was a revolutionary filmmaker back in the '00s - his '10/'20s are starting to date a little. Take the urine out of the Trumps, they're funny and odious cretins - but I lost a little respect for MM when he focused on the father/daughter relationship being potential incest; yes, it is creepy, yes, it is weird - but when I watched this, it seemed like another mud-slinging jibe which felt more personally directed to Trump himself. Why not focus on the sexual predatory issues surrounding Trump? That would seem a far more viable subject to pick up on. 5.5/10 - keep hosing! (By the way, I'm left-wing!)

What do you need to produce a lo-fi sci-fi independent film nowadays? Low-budget - check. Visually appealing CGI - check. An apocalyptic event - check. A mission to save the world - check. Environmental boundaries - check. Moral dilemma - check. Mythical/religious undertones - check. An absorbing storyline, good dialogue and well-directed actors - .... (We'll come onto that). Please visit the video to this review by searching Youtube for: "RE: Netflix's IO film overview (not review, spoiler, explanation or criticism)." IO is a sci-fi post-apocalyptic film about humankind's last moments on earth, and focuses all of its story on the main protagonist, Sam. She stays behind as the rest of the humans take the love train to Jupiter's moon, IO. She is convinced she can save the planet and helped by her father, she strives to stay alive by lighting a lighter, killing a pig, growing a few veggies, filtering water through charcoal, and listening to cassette tapes. She keeps in contact with her 'boyf' via a technological link as he gets ready to set off on the last mass exodus to IO. Sam is joined by a guy who falls from the sky and the drama really begins - poised with new questions, the story takes a swerve and the rest of the film focusses on human connection and erm love, I guess. And this is where the film stalls. With beautiful visuals and a great set, IO does a good job of hooking you into the story by way of asking you to invest in Sam and care for her future. And while Mags Q is fairly affable and you can certainly see why someone is trying desperately to get her to come to IO with her, unfortunately, her character underdelivers. But this is where the film falls short - in a film about human connection, you think they'd ramp up the drama, use their own theme as a backstop, and somehow weave in a storyline how her boyf comes and tries to physically take her (to IO). I know that would possibly compromise the main theme somewhat, but at least it would have given the characters a quandary; a genuine question of the human condition, conflict... and perhaps a little action. Instead, we are presented with a quasi-romance that is based on some kind of moral that simmers on the back-burner while we are taken on proposed journeys here and there to get this/that, explain that, or to decipher the pretence of the whole film. Written by a trio of writers - and lo and behold, it shows - IO has a lot of good ideas and concepts, but it doesn't follow through and maybe that is a product of the low budget; yet IO needed a new character(s) introduction(s) like Sam needs some bacon to go with her salad (poor joke, but have at you!). I'm sure the direction of the drama was underplayed on purpose, but how can you really invest in characters if you can't believe their motivations? And this can only come down to the direction, and perhaps, script. There are three great actors at play here, and they must have had an easy payday because while I am positive that this derives from a love for theatre, the characters (and interactions) just seem like lifeless puppets. This all comes back to the script/direction, and while it is hard to imagine what people would do in this situation, motivations are key in a survival tale. It seems as though the characters only served the purposes of spreading some thinly-sliced message that really doesn't have a centre. With Netflix's Bird Box a seeming hit, you can't help but feel as though this is Netflix's attempts to 'smell what sells' as IO came from nowhere. It has some similarities, but whereas the motifs in A Quiet Place (Bird Box's younger brother) is 'you can't make noise', and Bird Box is 'You can't look', this film appears to go one step further where 'You can't express your emotions'. I won't say that this is turgid, but it is something along those lines, and one of the only saving graces is that the scenery (and actors) are very nice to watch. As for, almost, everything else, well... you be the judge. Give it a go if you're bored. 4/10, and that is down to the visuals.

Bird Box is exactly what it says on the tin. Imagine that you filled a box full of various birds - different colours, breeds and sizes... And then shook the said box and opened it up onto Sandra Bullock's shrieking face. NB: Please take the time to watch/listen my overview on Youtube - search> "RE: Is Netflix's Bird Box one of their most overrated films? (not a challenge, review, or critique)." (copy/paste between quotes, can't link; sorry.) - like, comment, subscribe, discuss. That is as close to an experience as I could muster, as this film feels like a colourful mixture of ideas, tropes and themes. But the problem is, there is no real form or style to this adaptation. It isn't excellent as some have said, it is okay and that is all it will ever be. If it was released in the cinema - I would very much doubt that it would get 45 million view (which is LUDICROUS at best - nice marketing Netflix). The structure is completely messed up and it is almost as if the producers said: "Hey, we're bored, pass the editing keyboard", and then fell asleep midway through editing... (probably being a moron and doing the Bird Box challenge like all the idiot muppets who endanger others in the hope of some exposure). The cast are all there, but is as if the casting director had a game of Guess Who and got a few of them mixed up. Sarah Poulsen, a fine, fine actor, could have easily lead this film. Netflix continue to grind out film after film in the hope that they can create serials from the films that hit. This is an obvious marketing ploy that the magnate hope will drive them into the '20s. But they're obsessed with creating mish-mashed open-ended films with a subjective ending to create debate and blllaaahhh I forgot what I was saying... Something about torrid film/tv business planning? Fake word of mouth? Inorganic meme creation? Indirect viral attache's? Anyhow, there is a message in this film somewhere, but through all of the chatter, when the said message finally hits... You've realised that you've just spent the best part of two hours taxing your brain for nothing more than a ham-fisted denouement - that you may or may not have cast off in the first act - because it would seem too obvious. If you have a couple of hours to spare, and are into visual "end is nigh" films, then you may enjoy this for what it is. But if you're a more visceral and cerebral film fan, don't bother - this film is nothing more than a poorly rebranded 'A Quiet Place". A sci-fi, horror, mystery, action "jack of all trades, master of none" genre flick with half-baked characters, half-cooked script, and an overly serious lead, who leads you down a darkened path to the inevitable land of "Oh Jesus Christ on a skateboard". In all honesty, in this day in age... conserve your viewing time for something with a bit less fat and a bit more meat. It doesn't have much of a centre and the theme is totally baseless - the horror element is flawed, the characters are nothing but puppets, and the denouement is blag. I don't get if this film is a stinker that didn't get a distribution deal, and was flogged to Netflix (or if it was a Netflix original), but it is most definitely one of those films that you'd pop on in a retirement home to pacify the elderly and spark debate - which is a good thing I guess. And don't believe the reviews that say that this is nothing like a quiet place and who just tell you to watch it for yourself. These are more than likely Netflix spambots whose sole purpose is not a far cry from the zealots in this here film " just look... How beautiful...." - these are probably the people who share memes, have liquid lunches, and pay 200 quid for a colon cleanse... oh and probably get their kids to do the Bird Box challenge. Critics, reviewers, WOM's, rack off you turds - take your head off and melt it in hot wax! Additionally, if you want to watch to see what all the Bird Box challenge is about, then you probably shouldn't procreate and go do the Bird Box challenge near a small cliff. 4.5/10 for John Malkovich's drunk-but-not scene alone.

Finally, a film that I can like... Most of my reviews here have been shrewd, direct, downright disgusting and disturbing rants about everything from script, to location, to... well, everything but the kitchen sink. But I am overjoyed to say that, as an independent filmmaker myself, I have found the most unlikely of films in The Standoff at Sparrow Creek (Jesus Christ, I don't want to have to type that again). If you like Reservoir Dogs, one location (predominantly) taut thrillers that focus on character, rather than say... Bird Box which relies on Sandra Bullock shouting.... then give this a go. It is a hidden little gem that got limited release and has a great cast... Good dialogue, good pacing, excellent cinematography... and a strong theme (thank god). What are you waiting for? Go... stream... now!

Holy mother of eagles! Netflix have been at it again and have released yet another 'original', and if you haven't already had enough of a world where everything you can't see is meant to invoke a sudden onset of dread and fear, they've turned the tables here and what you can see is meant to invoke a sudden onset of dread and fear. Velvet Buzzsaw is the story of a group of art-meffs who find a series of paintings by a neighbour. The paintings are so good that everyone gets their knickers in a twist and stuff really goes down. Most of the characters turn their backs on one another, and everyone turns into complete and utter ghouls. Written and directed by Dan Gilroy, Velvet Buzzsaw is a horror/mystery/drama with smatterings of comedy (unintentional or otherwise). Starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Renee Russo, Toni Collete and that kid from Stranger Things, Velvet Buzzsaw is currently available to stream on Netflix. From the offset, I would just like to say that if you haven't watched Nightcrawler or Roman J. Esquire by Gilroy, you should probably put them in the to watch list, as they are truly glorious films. These are the best-known works of Dan Gilroy and each has its own merits - go... watch if you haven't already... especially Nightcrawler, it is truly a magnificent piece of filmmaking. This Velvet Buzzsaw however, it is dauntingly tedious at times and really feels like a half complete film that was finished by someone else. It is very well-presented, and the cinematography, and the colouring, is beautiful to view. The story is straightforward and the film plots along quite nicely indeed. It isn't a breathtaking story, and it simply follows a group of art colleagues who react to previously unseen art. However, there is one thing, the dialogue, at times, is laughably bad; the acting is what you'd expect in a Netflix film about high art, and whether or not this film is a smiley-faced prod at the industry, more often than not, the film takes on a character in its own right and it is a character with a sense of self-importance that leaves a fruity/tangy taste on the roof of your mouth. As I have said, there are times when the dialogue is a little more than ropey but... "What good is art, if not to be shown?" (I guess?). And whilst the action is mostly well-directed, the horror element is not particularly well-executed and the poorly timed jump scares cheapen the whole enterprise. Jake G is as solid as ever and how can you criticise Jake G - you can't, can you? He's just that good at the moment... plus his big sister will hunt you down and strangle you in your sleep. The supporting cast all do their jobs equally as good, so where do the problems lay? Well, Zawe Ashton who plays Josephina.. she sticks out like a sore thumb and is pretty much the weak link here - AND not because she is a black British woman. However, whether or not this is down to the dialogue alone, I'm not 100% sure... but there is a scene or two when she enters the stage and the drama falls flat. I've not seen her in much, I must admit... but her character is terribly underwritten, underplayed and underwhelming. I know that I keep on going on about the dialogue, but there are a number of hilariously bad lines in this film, and she has a good handful of them... I'm sorry, but her performance was subpar and she literally dragged most of her scenes out. Jake G feels more like a supporting cast member here. Then, well, the film's themes are a bit clunky.... it is quite heavy-footed and you can hear the tropes coming from a mile away. It doesn't have much verve, the genre is confusing, and it feels like it was devised by the ensemble. However, saying that, it is pretty pleasing to the eye and the audiio design is quite a treat - you should definitely wear earphones for this - in fact, why don't Netflix adopt an advert before a film starts if the said film has good audio? Also, we have to talk about the new Netflix logo opening... I mean, they get a 1 just for that. My score, 6 out of 10, and most of that is for Jake Gyllenhall's weird eyes.

Netflix are obsessed with real-life crime, and tapes. They remind me of the Patrick Bateman of the streaming world - good looking, well-dressed/presented, overpaid... and just one of many others trying to make their mark on this world. I won't bother with a synopsis; but it's about a guy who killed woman because he liked to do stuff to them before and after he killed them. Some guy sold Netflix some audio tapes, Netflix bought some old footage and brought in some talking heads... standard Netflix documentary really... nothing really new to see here. I'm a scriptwriter and whenever I watch documentaries, I build up a mental picture of the film that I would make if I had the dosh... I tried contacting Justin Wilkes, he is yet to get back to me. :D EXT. PRISON - NIGHT/DAY. TIMELAPSE FOOTAGE OF NATURE SURROUNDING A PRISON LEADS TO REVERSE STEADICAM FOOTAGE OF A MAN WALKING IN PRISON. IT IS TED BUNDY (CHRISTIAN BALE) - THE MAN WALKS INTO A PRISON VISITATION ROOM TO MEET WITH A BALDING MALE WHO HOLDS A TAPE RECORDER. Balding Male: Hey Ted, how're you? I brought you those magazines that you asked for. Ted: Hey thanks, you don't know how much I appreciate these... Balding Male: It's okay Ted, listen, I like you, can we get Ice Cream when you get off? Ted: Sure... when I get out, I'll take you around a few of my stomping ground... we'll make a film of it. Balding Male: Excellent - now, let's record some audio tapes. INSERT: A TAPE RECORDER RECORDING! That appears to be the mindset of Netflix when they make these - it is as if they are making a blueprint for a film/series and sometimes it is so on the nose, it makes you want to gag up some bile. Anyhow, this is good... it isn't brilliant, but it is just good. It rehashes a lot of what is out there about Ted Bundy, and you might learn a few new things if you are into this sort of thing, but by the by, it's old stock, sewn together with talking head interviews, and old stock footage. I'm fully expecting to see a film or serial crop up sometime soon, which may or may not be based upon this documentary... Regardless, I kind of enjoyed this, but as I say, it's as exploitative as it is interesting. Give it a go if you're into this sort of thing, but if you're a Ted Bundy fan... You should probably go and flush your head down a toilet. 5/10 for getting their hands on the audio tapes.

Okay, where to start? If "Brexit" (the political experiment) has taught us anything, it is that any fictionalised drama that starts with the words "This drama is based on real events...", should probably be taken with a pinch of salt. Don't forget that this is a political film and what do we know about politics? Politics bleeds into everything, and Politics (big P) lies without reason. So, it could be said that this piece has an agenda, Political films with agendas can be argued as being propaganda. So go into this film with more than just an Ad/Agenda blocker installed. As I sit here, at this ungodly hour, cheating Channel 4's advertising protocols with said Adblocker, upon the pre-title disclaimer, I already know that I am in for 93 minutes of complete and utter circle-jerk makebelieve. There may be the slither of truth in it, but let's not forget this isn't an expose - the characters' real-life counterparts will be loving this (even if it is a bag of manure), as it is a digitised legacy. However, it might be entertaining, so I'll give it a shot and hope it doesn't treat me like an idiot. Let's begin. The cast needs no introduction, the synopsis and plot do not need an introduction, but every TV programme does - in this case, it begins with the usual pre-amble and classical overtures, designed to inspire a sense of nationalism in you. There's no real context (there's a thin meta on the EU and the Tories of course), however, there is no subtlety in its objective; YOU ARE BRITISH THIS IS YOUR FILM - yeah, right; pull the other one you twaddle-surfing anglo-saxon you. It stars the usually solid Benedict Cumberbatch (donning a bad Shredded Wheat head) delivering a House of Cards-like direct-to-camera, moving onto the cliche'd interview scene, followed by the whiteboard trope - I can already tell that I won't like his character... but I don't think I'm meant to; however, if my year's of theatre/drama has taught me anything, by the end, I'll either like him a little less, or a wee bit more - let's see shall we? I'm a third of the way through and I want to gouge my eyes out with Nigel Farage's nostrils already. The dialogue is snappy and the stagecraft is quite good, but the 'MESSAGE' is so thick, you could write it on... oh wait... we've already had the inevitable whiteboard scene - why do I get the feeling that I'm being controlled by liminalism here? Following a tried-and-tested formula, this is basically "Star Wars: A New Hope"; whereas Luke is the hero, in this, we have an anti-anti-hero (Northern-lite Cumber-thatch). Now, Facebook is the Lightsabre in this monomyth, and the producers/writers here have got it a little bit backwards - in this rendition, Luke uses the Lightsabre before he even gets it; good idea guys :), bad execution though :(. If you're still gazumped about what 'Brexit' (the Political experiment) is, join the club; but this programme won't help you - it will just raise more questions than it will answer (while propagating its own answers). If you just want something to waste your time on and see panto characters who skirt around the reality of 'Brexit' while racking up the sentimentality of it all, this is for you. Imagine that 'Brexit' is a rotating see-saw, with all of us citizens riding it. Now imagine self-serving privateering wannabes armed with whips are spinning and swinging the motion of the see-saw by whipping us as politicians throw IOU's into the mix whilst they shout patchwork statements to influence the motion of the see-saw - that is all 'Brexit' is - it's about false economy and plastic money (whichever way you lean). This programme is no different; it is just more entities trying to grab the IOU's. No one will win, no-one will lose, only the media, political elite and privateers will - not the everyday citizen. And i'll tell you the message that you SHOULD take from this - scale back on social media and engage in real-life. Don't believe everything you read/see, stop taking digital shortcuts and go and make up your own mind with informed decisions. 5.1/10!

11 p.m: I am about to sit down and watch this film. I'll report back. It is now 5 a.m and I fell asleep, I can't remember where I got to, but I have images of Woody H crying into his hat. What's that all about? Round Two. Okay, so after round two, this film is losing me a little. If you've read my previous reviews or watched my Youtube reviews, you'll know I am fairly critical of Netflix's film output. Some films seem as though they were sold to Netflix because they couldn't find another distributor... whilst some other films are just terrible bargain buckets. I'm not sure what The Highwaymen is but it isn't terrible, it just ain't as good as some of the reviews are making out. The Highwaymen is a game of cat and (invisible) mouse between two aged Texas Rangers (the last cowboys of the old Americas) and Bonnie and Clyde. The detectives are behind the times, and face an uphill battle, but they have experience, grit and gut instinct. Kathy Bates (who needed a few more scenes) plays the governor(ess) and isn't too pleased with their methods. I found this film a bit of a drag if I am honest - I really wanted to love it as I enjoy both leads and am a fan of American gangster films. If you think of The Untouchables (with Costner), Road to Perdition and LA Noire (yes, the game), you'll be in the same universe as this film. However, TH is a road/investigation film and a lot of the action is spent going from one place to another, speaking to him and speaking to her. Woody H and Kev C are at the forefront of that action and whilst they are excellent in their roles, they didn't quite gel at times for me (perhaps this is a True Detective run-off on my part). The production standards are excellent, and the supporting cast are equally as good. But there's just something missing... Perhaps... Bonnie and Clyde? (I know they're in it...somewhere) I get that the filmmakers are trying to do a 'Jaws', and follow the story of the main protagonist; stick to his point of view and let the character do the unfolding. But this film needed another point of view and it would've been a great film had it told the story from a few different angles (given the 2h 12m runtime). The beauty of The Untouchables was how it built the opposing worlds to an apex where the worlds clashed. The art of Road to Perdition was that the relationship between the leads grew as the story grew to a pinnacle moment. The problem here is that it feels disjointed and there are times when the dialogue gets in the way of the story and, yes, as viewers, we want to get to know our heroes, but we also want a taste of the foes (and not all through third-person exposition or second-hand accounting). Kathy Bates has a few scenes and probably could make a film of her character on her own (my idea Netflix)... Kev C is Kev C, you can't really not like him, and the same goes for Woody H. Maybe it is a part of their character or direction, but they just felt and looked disinterested or tired in their roles at times. A very formulaic film that borrows heavily from other films of the genre - but it doesn't quite 'hit it' - that is okay and all, I don't mind a long film... But there are scenes that drag and you do find yourself checking how long is left. I may give this another go and update my review on a third viewing; but I just about got past the first viewing and I'm really not sure how I should fairly vote based on that. I'm going to give it a thumbs down for the time being, and will report back after a second viewing. One other thing - I don't trust general reviews of Netflix films any more. The magnate are all about marketing and they are playing a very precarious game with marketing (as are other companies). I don't know what some 'pro critics' have been smoking, but this really isn't a "masterpiece"; it's a damn good film for Netflix - but come on - a masterpiece? I'm so confused, why oh why... would some suggest that I wonder? As always, I'd suggest you watch it for yourself but don't take the historical aspects of the story as gospel! 5.5/10!