Upcoming Movies

[John Cook]

Well this . . . does not look good:

Thanks for the warning.  I would probably have avoided it anyway.  Not much original coming out of the film industry these days.

[Ithoriel]

Loved the clip that's doing the rounds of Chris Pine explaining to Hugh Grant what an "easter egg" is in relation to the film.

[Ben Waterhouse]

I think it looks an absolute hoot! Looking forward to seeing it.

Absolutely!

[fsn]

I see that Netflix have added "The Gray man" to their oeuvre.

This is based on the first (in time) of the Gray Man books by Mark Greaney. These are action/spy type books a la Bourne with the eponymous Gray Man having an on/off job as an CIA assassin. I have read them all (bar the Gray Man itself) and they're fun nonsense - and I mean that as someone who enjoys and appreciates fun nonsense.

It stars Ryan Gosling and Chris Evans.

Trailer has lots of *boom*

Should be good.

Should be.

[fsn]

Hmmm. Review of the "Gray Man".

Have you ever watched the Jack Reacher films with Tom Cruise? They're OK. Tom being Tom and plenty of boom. If you then watch the Reacher series with Alan Ritchson, you see a whole different Reacher. For a start, Ritchson is a big bloke (6'2" and built like the proverbial outhouse) and Tom ... isn't. Then you read the Reacher books and find that Reacher is supposed to be a big bloke. However, does that make Tom's Reacher any less of a film? Well if you've seen Tom in action first, you're probably more forgiving than if you read the books first.   

"Nobby", I hear you say. (well the voices are saying - except they always call me "Batman") "you're supposed to be reviewing The Gray Man not Jack Reacher". Well, I read the Gray Man books before I saw the film and so when I watched the film I was confused by the patchwork of characters, mixed story lines and half hearted adherence to the books. They used the names (mostly) of the characters from the original, but changed the back story. Fitz for example, is (in the film) an ex-CIA agent. In the book, he's British for a start. In the books Lloyd is a recurring character and (spoiler) in the film, not so much.

Having said all that, if you haven't read any of the books, the Gray Man is high octane, as I believe is the term. The obligatory super-female is not that super, and manages to get beaten to a pulp by a man who is much bigger than she is, which is a change. The child is not annoying, which is also refreshing. Ryan Gosling as the eponymous Gray Man is a bit like Michael Keaton's Batman. A bland canvas in front of which the bad guys prance and strut. Chief strutter is Chris Evans who plays the psychopathic bad guy as if he was doing it because his girlfriend made him.

As as a stand alone the film is fine for a popcorn and beer sort of viewing.

     

[Raider4]

Not all movies, but these are on their way:

The Rings of Power - a Lord of the Rings prequel on Amazon Prime. Includes Lenny Henry as a hobbit, doing his best country bumpkin Mummerset accent.

House of the Dragon - a Game of Thrones prequel from HBO (so will be on Sky in the UK, presumably?).

And finally, Prey - the next installment in the Predator franchise. Set in 18th century America. Can't possibly be worse that the last one. Released on/by Hulu. Not sure if the means it will be in cinemas or not, or a streaming service?

[Ithoriel]

The fragmentation of movie distribution is a regular bugbear of mine.

I am NOT going to subscribe to a dozen different services in a fit of misplaced FOMO!

I use Amazon Prime because I am Mr. Disorganised and free, fast, often 24hr delivery regularly saves my bacon. Prime Gaming and Prime Video are nice to have add-ons but without the delivery side I wouldn't bother.

Netflix, Sky Movies, Disney, Hulu, et al can go hang!

</soapbox>

[fsn]

Tend to agree with Mr I.

I started with Netflix years ago, and keep it up mostly because my daughter uses it. I have amazon Prime for the speedy delivery and the video platform is somewhat secondary.

Gave up my BBC licence 'cos the only thing I watched was Only Connect and I can go to my daughter's and binge watch that. (Seems like a fair exchange.)

Agree with Mr 4 as well. I've given up on so many franchises that I used to enjoy because the modern ones are either badly written and/or badly "re-imagined" - Dr Who, Star Trek, DC Comics, Star Wars, Terminator, Predator, etc, etc. I never got past the Lord of the Rings on Radio 4 with Ian Holm and Michael Horden, but I've watched the "Rings of Power" trailers and imagine Mr Tolkien doing handsprings in the afterlife.

I leave aside the Marvel films, as well ... they're just Marvel. I also recognise my own bias - for example I refused to watch Woodentop Craig as Bond because he's blond. *

It seems to me that there is a dearth of good writing. The best performing films of 2022 Spider-Man: No Way Home and Top Gun: Maverick are in some ways throwbacks to the 1980s.       


Now, I mostly watch YouTube (great series on the Franco-Prussian War week-by-week linked below) or listen to audiobooks. Last week I attended the virtual Data Practitioners' Conference and painted a regiment of Polish lancers as I listened.
   

*And a Woodentop. After half an hour of Defiance I was hoping the Nazis would find him.

[Orcs]

Gave up my BBC licence 'cos the only thing I watched was Only Connect and I can go to my daughter's and binge watch that. (Seems like a fair exchange.)

Some very strange rules on the TV licensing website. You can watch Netflix and on demand TV, provided you do not watch I-player or Amazon Prime.

But if you watch any live content on any on demand service you do? How the heck can they tell or work that out?

It used to be if you had a TV aerial and a device you could connect it to even if you didn't connect it.

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ104#:~:text=Do%20I%20need%20a%20TV%20Licence%20to%20watch%20Netflix%3F,on%20demand%20programmes%20on%20Netflix.

[John Cook]

These are answers to FAQs rather than rules.  The key issue is whether the programmes are live or not. 

According to Which - Legal "The law says you need a TV licence to watch, record or stream programmes live on any TV channel, and to watch or download any BBC programme. It doesn't matter whether you do that on a TV, laptop, tablet or any other device. But you may not need a licence if you're not watching live TV, or if you have no TV."

There were, apparently, over 49,000 prosecutions last year, 92% of which resulted in convictions and it doesn't seem to matter very much whether you  watch live TV or not, or just on-demand TV, as the licence simply enables you to install and use television receiving equipment.  The assumption seems to be that if you have such equipment, you must be using it and this includes TVs, PCs, mobile phones, DVD recorders, in fact anything at all that is capable of receiving live TV by any means.   

[pierre the shy]

Blimey they still have TV licensing in the UK? 

Reminds me of that episode of "The Young Ones" where Vivian ends up eating the flat's TV, but is caught by the inspector with the plug still hanging out his mouth....used to love that series when it was on in the early 80's...a few years ago now!

[John Cook]

Yes, we still do.  It is a contentious subject and an unpopular 'tax'.  It is used, essentially, to fund BBC TV, radio and other BBC services like iPlayer, all of which are advertisement-free at the moment.  It is frozen at the moment and due for review in 2027.  The present government, for all kinds of reasons, wants to replace it with something else. 

[Ben Waterhouse]

We haven't had a licence for 23 years now...

As the Government say,

"You do not need a TV Licence to watch:

non-BBC programmes on online catch-up services
videos or DVDs
clips on websites like YouTube
closed circuit television (CCTV)"

[Gwydion]

Very happy to pay the licence and fund the only broadcast news service not in hoc to a media oligarch, and the producer of excellent drama and documentaries.

[howayman]

Quite happy to pay tv licence .
Rarely watch BBC tv these days but do listen to the BBC radio most days and its got to be funded somehow.