I took my son Dante and some of his friends to see the movie 65 at the weekend. We had the screen to ourselves, which was handy, as most of the boys swiftly lost interest in the rather poor, dull film, and so they were free to move around the cinema and chase each other up and down the aisles!! :-)

I must admit, it seemed like a very strange decision to cast only two actors in the bulk of the movie. The basic idea was a fun, bonkers one -- astronauts end up on Earth 65 million years ago and get chased by dinosaurs. But, really, you needed quite a lot of characters being ripped apart and eaten by dinosaurs in order that a daft story like that to truly realise its potential. We needed to be seeing the fodder being served up as hors d'oeuvres to the hungry dinos, for our heroes' survival to have any real meaning. The writers and directors could of course have played with the familiar tropes -- it's always nice when film makers can find a fresh way to spin a story like this -- but to make it so limiting, to willfully turn aside from all the possibilities that the story threw up...

It confused me. I just couldn't see why they'd try to make a touching, meaningful little film when they'd chosen such a large-scale, crazy canvase to paint their story on. Where's Roland Emmerich when you need him?!? :-)