Nasty webOS!

Coming from a path through Psion and Windows Mobile (laying aside the awful PsiWin), I was used to functional density and working from a ‘file-first’ management system, rather than the ‘guided’ experience brought about by (particularly) Apple and Palm/webOS. It felt like moving from a ‘proper computing’ (near desktop-like, enjoyed since DOS) workstation to more of a ‘toy’ environment. I was used to clunky task and file management, not the ‘card-like’, almost ‘childish’ feel of webOS. It felt claustrophobic and I didn't feel in control as I had been used to. The slow and imprecise flicking away of ‘cards’/apps had more the feel of a Speak & Spell machine (though not literally, obviously) rather than the granular control I was used to (and still am).

I liked Windows, DOS and Psion’s granular control. I wasn't ready yet for this new-fangled way. I had given Google and Gmail a pass since 2004 because everything could be run on the desktop, with a keyboard and mouse, in the way I was used to operating. No mobile phone with a tiny screen was going to meet my needs - and, to a large degree, they still don't. Not even the minuscule keyboarded devices. Phones to me were, and are, very secondary devices to how I function. By a huge margin, the vast majority of my ‘computing time’ is in front of my Windows PC. If I have to use a phone, it's a second-rate experience compared to the one I prefer - huge screen, proper keyboard, precise input devices. So much easier. But yes, Android went the same way in the end, to a point where every OEM it seems is copying the horrible (in my view) Apple/Palm/webOS thing. Symbian Series 80 was usable, S60 with the E90 was there too, but even then, it was drifting away. I still, always, wanted my desktop experience which I had been using since about 1986.

Some people seem to feel the need to minimise for the sake of it. Some because they can, some because they need a ‘mobile’ solution and many because they just want to see what tech can do. Look at Shane Craig as an example - he works from home and by his own admission (and clear practice) everything is much easier on a big screen and full-size keyboard with a mouse. But no, he wants to push the boundaries of split-screen multitasking and folding tablets into phones - which, unless one has to (or is interested in tech for tech’s sake), is stacked full of compromises. Which brings us back to webOS - pocket devices that feel like they were bought in Toys R Us, Apple's iOS, and then, yes, Android. As I say, everyone is just copying each other, making the ‘mobile computing’ experience dumbed-down and accessible to non-geeky, non-nerdy people just to flog hardware.

I realise that, as a user of Google services, this now sounds like a contradiction, but the same applies. I constantly try to find ways of controlling my Google apps and services from my desktop PC. Google are generally good at that, with browser-based echoes of most of their services (with a few exceptions, like Journal and Screenshots just now). This means I can get to my desk and do what I want, see the screen (not squint at it) and type like a pro (well, maybe not quite a ‘pro’)!

I reject the whole ‘search’ thing, too - like swiping down then typing to find an app, relying on the system to find it. No doubt it does, as it does for Apple and webOS, but I want to be in control of that. I want to know where the app shortcut is, and use it. It is the same mentality as knowing where stuff is on my PC and being organised. Perhaps that's the point - the Apple/webOS philosophy accepted that people weren't (or didn't want to be) organised and methodical. For the person on the street, that was likely true. So the opportunity was there to make a fortune on the ‘it just works’ claptrap, leaving geeks and nerds to be content with (now) Ubuntu Touch, Sailfish and other non-mainstream solutions. But I'm drifting away from the point again!

WebOS was one of the first to embrace the idea that you should never have to ‘plug into a computer’ to update or back up. For those of us used to ActiveSync, PsiWin or Nokia PC Suite, this felt like black magic - or rather, losing control over one's device hardware. I liked hierarchical, file-based interaction. I like my big monitor, keyboard, and mouse. I didn't want finger-based gesture control. I like having access at the registry level of Windows. I liked what Psion did with that, what Windows Phone did with that and what Symbian Series 80 did with that. Then, it slid away in lieu of mass-market appeal and financiers making as much cash out of (dumb, uninterested in what's under the bonnet) Joe Public as they can. It was a masterstroke (well, not for webOS, as it happens) for Apple, and increasingly Google, with Microsoft sadly being left behind in the mobile space. It was the RIP of the wonderful control under Symbian and Psion.

WebOS was one of the first ‘human’ OSes. It didn't feel like a computer shrunken down into a pocket - which is what I would have liked - but rather a new category of device (from which Apple and Android stole directly). Hated it. Still hate it. I hate what Apple does, I hated what webOS did, and I don't particularly like what Android does in terms of the pocket device. But until I'm brave enough to embrace the likes of Ubuntu/Sailfish and accept the inherent compromises, it's the best thing on the table for me. Much as I hated the whole Windows 10 Mobile thing and the clunky ‘live tiles’ front-end, at the moment, I think I might still prefer it. And lastly, Palm devices were tiny! Presumably if they had kept going (in any meaningful way) today's Palm devices would by now be much bigger, but looking back, you'd need a child's hands and eyes.

WebOS for me is in the same league as iOS - a dumbed-down UI, not for geeks/nerds who want granular control (on device). I'm coming from the place where I started in 1986 with my IBM PC/XT, a Psion and Sony Ericsson in my pocket - and dial-up CIX. Great days!

Women Talking (2022)

This is a powerful psychological drama pulled together by director/writer Sarah Polley, working from the novel by Miriam Toews. The film’s tagline - "Do Nothing. Stay and Fight. Leave." - depicts the harrowing plight of a group of women in a story that lingers long after the credits roll.

Toews’ novel is a 'fictional response' to real events that occurred between 2005 and 2009 at the Manitoba Colony in Bolivia. In that horrific real-life case, eight men were eventually convicted of raping over 150 women and girls, using a bovine anaesthetic spray to knock the victims unconscious. Here, the story is transposed to a secluded, conservative Mennonite colony, circa 2010, focusing on the systemic power and control men exert over women.

For years, the women have woken up bruised and bleeding, only to be told by the men that their injuries were the work of ghosts, demons, or 'wild female imagination'. The truth is that the men have been physically and sexually abusing them under the cloak of religion, weaponising the fear of eternal damnation to ensure compliance. When one man is caught mid-assault and names his accomplices, the men of the colony travel en masse to a local town to bail him out. They leave the women with a cruel ultimatum - forgive the attackers within two days or face excommunication and no afterlife!

Most of the film takes place in a hayloft where three families debate their future. Salome (Claire Foy - H is for Hawk, My Son) is fuelled by a righteous rage after her daughter is attacked, Ona (Rooney Mara - Nightmare Alley, Carol, Una), pregnant by her rapist, seeks a philosophical and peaceful way forward and Mariche (Jessie Buckley - Wicked Little Letters, Men, Fingernails, I'm Thinking of Ending Things) is cynical and fearful, trapped in an abusive marriage. They eventually realise that 'staying and fighting' would only exacerbate the violence, while 'doing nothing' is no longer an option.

This is where the powerhouse performances truly shine. As they debate the pros and cons, they engage the services of a scribe, August (Ben Whishaw - Fargo). August is the boys' teacher, deemed 'weak' and subservient by the other men following a previous excommunication involving his mother years prior. Because the women have been forbidden from learning to read or write for generations, August becomes the silent witness to their revolution. While the men are some distance away, the tension remains high. There is a constant, looming threat that they could rock up at any moment looking for their pleasure.

The film is a deliberate slow-burn, but the time flies due to the sheer quality of the acting as Polley effectively traps the audience in the hayloft with the women. The cinematography is particularly striking as the dry and dusty location is rendered in a way that feels almost like black and white. In the loft at night, the subdued lighting allows for lovely shadow-play and tight focus. By staying close to the faces of Foy and Buckley, the camera catches every micro-expression - a quivering lip, a flared nostril or an unshed tear.

Frances McDormand produced the film and plays a small, pivotal role as Scarface Janz, an elder too fearful of the unknown to join the debate. It is also a Plan B project, from Brad Pitt’s production company, but the final shout-out must go to Icelandic composer Hildur Guðnadóttir (of Joker fame), whose score provides a haunting backdrop. Women Talking wasn't a film I initially jumped at - largely due to the heavy religious themes - but I am glad I did. It is a deeply moving, essential piece of art/work and recommended.

Encounter (2021)

Michael Pearce’s film begins as a gritty, extraterrestrial survival thriller. However, all is not quite as it seems. When the (Nevada) desert dust settles, the film strips away the sci-fi elements to reveal a devastating psychological drama. What starts as a mission to save humanity quickly transforms into a desperate attempt to save a father from his own fracturing mind.

Riz Ahmed (Fingernails) plays Malik, a father of two young boys. Having served as a Marine for many years, he hasn't been around much and the film uses science fiction to explore the reality of his untreated PTSD. He arrives one dark night and snatches Jay and Bobby from under the noses of his ex-wife and her new partner. The film then becomes a road trip. Malik is taking the boys to a 'safe place' to avoid what he claims are microscopic aliens infiltrating the bodies of half the population.

It is a poignant portrait of a decorated veteran let down by the system upon his return to the USA, with his trauma-based mental health problems left unaddressed. We tag along on what Malik considers a rescue mission, becoming embedded in his delusion. Over time, only the older boy, Jay, begins to perceive the reality of his father's condition.

About halfway through, the truth becomes obvious to the audience too, as the emphasis shifts. We are introduced to Hattie, a professional who has been trying to help Malik settle back into civilian life - and a team of FBI agents. Having realised what has happened, the authorities begin tracking him down, fearing - based on similar past cases - that Malik might kill the boys and then himself. Hattie doesn't believe this to be the case so is fighting the FBI for a more passive intervention within which everyone can survive.

As the journey continues, Malik’s behaviour becomes increasingly erratic and violent. He gets into a punch-up with a police officer and assaults an old man while searching for car keys following a blowout. The old man's sons - who lack the FBI's code of conduct - give chase, leading to further violence while the two lads are caught firmly in the middle. As Jay realises the truth, he becomes fiercely protective of his dad, though he remains initially largely powerless to intervene meaningfully.

The story becomes a question of survival. What will become of Malik and the boys - and who will reach them first - the officials or the armed locals? By this stage, everyone is prepared for a violent outcome. Throughout the chaos, Malik genuinely has his sons' interests at heart, clinging to his conviction of an alien invasion until the very end. Because we cannot 'see' the aliens, the theme reflects how society is often blind to the invisible struggles of mental illness.

Riz Ahmed’s performance is great. He plays the troubled soul convincingly, sweeping us along through his swings between a devoted father and a violent protector. The two boys are also excellent - particularly Lucian-River Chauhan as Jay, though Aditya Geddada also effectively conveys Bobby’s fear and incomprehension. Octavia Spencer (Hidden Figures, The Help) commands her scenes as Hattie, providing a grounded counterpoint as the film moves at pace from a character study into a police chase.

The cinematography is sweaty, claustrophobic and beautifully executed. While the storyline is ambitious and the tone intrusive, the constant buzzing and humming in the audio mimics Malik’s deteriorating mental state. Encounter is a thought-provoking, well-produced film that is well worth a look. It is currently streaming on Amazon Prime Video in the UK.

Is This Thing On? (2025) - A Guest Review by Chad Dixon

This film is loosely inspired by the life of British Comedian John Bishop, who is also one of the producers. It is a cinema release that is set in a contemporary New York City.

Working in finance but never actually seen in his place of work, Alex Novak (Will Arnett), is currently separated from his Wife, Tess (Laura Dern). Sharing custody of their two 10 year old sons, Alex lives separately from the family home in a spartan one bed apartment in the city. One evening, when he is feeling particularly sorry for himself, he finds himself at a club in town that lets patrons duck the $15 cover charge if they put themselves down for a short stand-up set. He signs his name and very soon it's his turn in the spotlight.

Talking off the top of his head about his recent marriage break up during the set, amazingly, his stream of consciousness goes down well with the small crowd - and afterwards, when talking to the other more regular stand up performers, he feels some sort of kinship. Reflecting on it later it seems like it was quite a cathartic experience and he definitely would like to do it again.

Meanwhile Tess is getting on with single life the best she can. Dutifully looking after her musically talented boys but still feeling like the peek of her life up till this point was her participation in the 1984 USA Olympic Volleyball Team. She now hopes to get into women's volleyball coaching as the next Games hosted in Los Angeles in 2028 is just around the corner.

Alex and Tess have a small group of mutual friends who are equally supportive of them. Most notable is Alex's old college buddy and best friend Arnie (Bradley Cooper), who is also this film's director. He's an insecure, struggling actor whose life and relationship to Christine (Andra Day) seems to be mirroring Novak's as they both separately tell Alex that they are not happy in their marriage.

The Novak grandparents, Dad (Ciarán Hinds) and Mum (Amy Sedaris), also supply emotional and practical support - which in a couple scenes in particular, proves very moving. His fellow stand-ups even become a sort of surrogate family that Alex leans more on, as the narratives of his subsequent performances reflect the ups and downs of his life.

Regarding the chosen cinematography, this irked me a lot - as whenever the main two characters are on screen, which is a lot of the 2 hour 4 minute runtime, the camera is right in their face - to the point that nothing else is visible in the frame. I had to move back a couple of rows in the multiplex cinema to compensate for this slightly nauseating technique.

Otherwise this story was told straightforwardly and there are solid performances from the ensemble cast, although I must say Bradley Cooper's character was a quite annoying. Not to mention his many facial hair changes (which apparently was for the different acting roles he was involved in). Nothing else really bugged me, but possibly this may be a much easier watch at home when it finally gets onto streaming platforms.

Night of the Hunted (2023)

This is one of those relatively low-budget thrillers that Shudder does so well - their bread and butter, perhaps. It’s not going to win any awards, but it’s entertaining, well-produced, well-shot and capably acted by the leads, The 90 minutes fly by nicely.

We join the film in an American motel bedroom as Alice, a marketing executive for a major pharmaceutical company away from home on business, is clearly sleeping with a colleague. They get up very early in the morning to head home after their conference the day before. Unknown to them at this stage, there is a leak in their petrol tank. Confused, they pull into a petrol station to fill up. While her colleague is doing so, she heads into the shop for a few bits and pieces.

The petrol station is deserted, however - not even a cashier is present - so Alice leaves her money on the counter and prepares to leave. As she turns away, a sniper takes a shot from somewhere outside with a long-range rifle and hits her in the arm. Shocked, she takes cover behind various shelves as the sniper continues to take pot-shots at her, resulting in several near-misses.

Her colleague finishes filling the car and, wondering where Alice has got to, goes inside to investigate. As he does so, the sniper shoots him dead. Alice then discovers the body of the assistant behind the till. That is essentially the bones of the setup - we spend the rest of the film with Alice as she tries to work out how to survive and escape. The sniper has placed a two-way radio unit on the counter and invites Alice to enter into a conversation with him, which she sees as an opportunity to negotiate her way out of the mess.

As the conversation progresses, it becomes clear that the sniper has a catalogue of grievances against society. He rambles on about anti-vax theories, moral compromises and anti-corporate sentiments - holding Alice, because of her job, responsible for the 'evil' done to people. It is not entirely clear if this was a targeted setup - whether he deliberately punctured the petrol tank so it would run dry at that exact spot - or if it was a random situation and Alice’s profession simply became a convenient excuse for his rage. So don't overthink it!

As the night goes on, various other people pull up for fuel and a few more characters are drawn into the siege. One of them is a young child, which tests the actions of both the sniper and Alice, adding plenty of suspense and tension. I won’t spoil the ending, but the film does leave the sniper’s identity somewhat ambiguous. There is a hint that Alice’s husband might be involved (though the sniper is not him) and that he had found out about her affair.

Ultimately, there is plenty of atmosphere and creepiness in this claustrophobic scenario. Camille Rowe, as Alice, is in almost every scene and her decent performance carries the film. She portrays a character who is flawed and morally compromised, yet gritty and fiercely determined to survive. There is a bit of gore from injuries here and there, but nothing truly horrific. Well worth a look if you can find it on streaming.

We Bury the Dead (2024)

This Australian survival thriller stars our very own Brit darling Daisy Ridley, whom I have watched with much enjoyment in Sometimes I Think About Dying (2023), reviewed on my blog, Magpie (2024), which we spoke about in glowing terms on our Projector Room Podcast - and whom others will no doubt know from the Star Wars films.

Director Zak Hilditch here crafts a story that is more of a grief-based drama than a traditional zombie movie. The film explores loving relationships that can go wrong against the backdrop of a military disaster off the coast of Australia - namely Tasmania - and introduces a more intelligent than average supernatural twist.

The Americans have accidentally detonated an experimental electromagnetic pulse weapon off the Tasmanian coast. The blast instantly kills most of the island's population by causing total neural failure. The Australian authorities are welcoming volunteers to collect bodies, assisting the military with a gruesome clean-up. The twist here though, is that some - just a small percentage - of the dead are coming back to life, or at least a baseline, reanimated form of living. So yes, technically it's a zombie film! The longer they are left in that state, the more likely they are to become aggressive. Up to now, the military 'finishes them off' while they are still slow-moving, whenever one is found by the teams.

Ridley plays Ava, an American physiotherapist who joins this body retrieval unit. Her true motive, however, is to find her husband, Mitch, who was at a resort in the restricted blast zone when the weapon went off. She eventually teams up with Clay (Brenton Thwaites), a local man running from his own past, and the two go rogue, stealing a motorcycle to head south into the dangerous quarantined territory where Mitch was last known to be.

The 're-living' are characterised by a chilling, haunting, rhythmic grinding of their teeth as they become aggressive and launch attacks on the living, given the chance. We're not really sure what these creatures do if they catch someone because, throughout the film, it doesn't actually happen. Presumably, they are hungry and might try to eat them, but as I say, we don't have to deal with the specifics of that.

Midway through their journey, Ava and Clay meet Riley (Mark Coles Smith), a soldier who has spiralled into madness regarding lost memories and his wife, who was pregnant at the time of the incident. Some dubious, creepy happenings take place at his house and outbuildings - half of which resemble a shrine - while he offers to help them reach their destination. I shall say no more on that!

Clay disappears during this time, so Ava continues alone. We travel with her as she encounters various members of the living dead and watch how she deals with each thrilling situation. The film's only annoying part is the reliance on too many flashbacks to paint a picture of Ava and Mitch's background - but to be fair, it does all come together and make sense in the end. It is a satisfying conclusion, though it contains one element that was a bit of a stretch!

The blood, guts, and gore are constrained here. The emphasis is certainly more on spook, chill, atmosphere and shadowy figures lurking in-frame to raise tension - and it does this well. Daisy Ridley is worth the ticket price alone, as she plays her part beautifully, and the rest of the cast are not far behind. The music is also lovely, with moving scenes set to classical pieces that fit perfectly as the cinematography takes in broad land and seascapes.

It's a smart little thriller which has just arrived on streaming services in the UK and is well worth a look. It won't blow your socks off, but for me, the 90-minute investment paid off well.

28 Years Later: The Bone Temple (2026) - A Guest Review by Chad Dixon

This is a direct sequel to last year's 28 Years Later (and was shot back-to-back). It is still set in a post-apocalyptic Britain where many mindless, "infected", cannibalistic humans roam ferally, usually led by one giant Alpha individual.

The story follows directly on from the final scene of the previous film where, after losing his whole family to illness and to "the infected", Spike (Alfie Williams) runs into a band of violent fanatics who all dress like Jimmy Savile with blonde flowing wigs and gold chains worn over different coloured tracksuits. He is addressed by their apparent leader who introduces himself as Satanist "Sir Lord" Jimmy Crystal (Jack O'Connell), adorned with the most chains and a prominent inverted crucifix.

Spike is a virtual prisoner within this cult which, including the leader, numbers seven disciples known as his "Fingers", all called Jimmy "something". In what looks like an initiation ceremony in the empty pool of a long-abandoned water park, Spike is forced into a knife fight with Jimmy Shite (Connor Newell). The young, diminutive newcomer is totally terrified, but the gang member's cockiness leads him to let his guard down, allowing Spike to fatally cut his leg artery. Over the still-warm corpse, Crystal promotes Spike to become the replacement "Finger" and immediately gives him his new name: "Jimmy".

Meanwhile, Dr Ian Kelson (Ralph Fiennes), still living alone, is continuing the dutiful guardianship of the "Bone Temple", a hilltop memorial of piled-up, bleached human remains he has found over the years. However, he now seems to be fascinated with a nearby 6'7" Alpha male he has christened Samson (Chi Lewis-Parry), whom, during their latest encounter, he has skilfully sedated with a blowpipe. In his dream-like state, Samson seems to be showing signs of some sentient brain activity. Could this be a sign that the terrible infection that has devastated the land for a generation could be cured?

The main core of the plot here, however, follows the path of the "Jimmy" cult and their fanatic leader, the self-proclaimed son of "Old Nick". He leads his "disciples" in a reign of terror across the land; they are actually more of a threat to any "uninfected" humans just trying to survive the best they can. Spike is obviously the thread that runs through both of these films, and as he seems to get closer to one of the young females in the cult, Jimmy Ink (Erin Kellyman), things take a surprising turn. The countryside again looks fabulously unmanicured and can definitely be seen as another character in this nightmarish world.

The "18" certificate is definitely warranted here, as this is much more gory than the previous film in the series. It includes graphic scenes of disembowelment, mutilation and overt cannibalistic behaviour. It can be a tough watch, but thankfully it's not relentless. There is some respite in the scenes where Ralph Fiennes has a much bigger part and shows us some quite animated exuberance. Indeed, his involvement in the third act is quite a feast for the eyes and ears! The runtime of 1 hour and 50 minutes flies by, and there is another end scene that links to the third film in the trilogy, where we are met with a familiar face from the original 2002 film.