Change Your Image
ferzal
Reviews
Brian Cox's Adventures in Space and Time (2021)
Brian Cox... revisited.
I'm a Prof. Cox fan. Unashamedly. We're looking at the man handpicked by King David to continue the natural history/science tradition of excellence at the BBC which is simply in a class of its own. There is no second place in this category thanks to the pioneering work of Sir David Attenborough.
The content must live up to the standard that these presenters need to use their enthusiasm and real-world familiarity to impart their knowledge effectively.
In this case it's good material but it's not a truly, planned story. Perhaps we've got COVID-19 to thank for this but it's a kind of "best of" with a tale spun around it.
If you're new to Brian Cox and his world jump right in. It's a 9. If you've seen it all before then it's not going give you what you've been waiting for - a NEW adventure.
Is it worth a look though? Well it's Prince Brian so indeed it is. Without question.
Doctor Who (2005)
Nepotism at its finest
A 1/10 you say? What? Is it that bad? Why yes it is. And here's how it happened: Nepotism.
The Broadchurch connection eliminated any real casting for the lead role and so we end up with the weakest doctor ever. She is a terrible doctor and, upon, announcement I suspected she would be. The problem is, unfortunately, that Ms Whittaker isn't a character actor. That's not a huge criticism in general but it is if you're playing the iconic Doctor. Jodie is just Jodie in whatever she does. She makes for a ridiculous Doctor in that absurd outfit.
Forcing a female doctor was always going to be a challenge. The last thing you'd want to do is the first thing Chibnall did: pick a friend. Maybe the BBC couldn't afford Tilda Swinton but you can't tell me that all those (pointless) auditions didn't turn up someone with an ounce of talent for the role. I just cannot believe how utterly terrible Ms Whittaker is as an actor in this role and cannot fathom how Chibnall can get away with this. The nepotism (which goes beyond Ms Whittaker) is well documented. Come on.. is the world really that small?
There's no point even commenting on the rest of the cast and the plots. It's impossible to get past Whittaker as the meek, dopey doctor with a wardrobe dragged from a low budget 1980's morning kid's show.
What the Health (2017)
It gets a 2 to balance out the "mate votes"
The actual rating of a "documentary" as blatantly biased as this falls somewhere smack bang in the 3-4 range. This, like most that make the claim, is not a true documentary but many will froth at the mouth in vehement agreement and just as many will call it all cods-wallop. The truth here is, of course, somewhere in the middle but you won't find any indication of that in this presentation.
The very problem with these films is that the makers are crusaders. The best documentaries are those that give us a film-maker with a question in search of an answer. What we have here, as with his previous flick "Cowspiracy", is a guy with an agenda who has found some backing for his soapbox. To say he was cherry-picking the "science" is being kind. But let's be kind.
You can't trust anything presented in this piece as either truth or science but it may make you question what you're putting in your mouth and, for that reason alone, there's some merit to funding this vegan fear-frenzy of misdirection and misinformation.
The concern I have is that when discerning film-goers find out just how misleading this piece actually is, it could have a detrimental affect on the vegan movement and healthy eating in general. And that, in my opinion, is a shame.
The truth is compelling enough. This, fellow doco fans, ain't that.