Pop Culture Double Date

Let's face it: we all felt a little burnt by the way "Game of Thrones" ended, so when HBO announced that it had greenlit a prequel show about House Targaryen, we were mightily sceptical. But little by little, we were sucked in, to the point where we now can't avoid the conversation about "House of the Dragon" – the time jumps, the casting changes, the incest, and funnily enough, the merits or demerits of one Viserys I.

Here's the thing about Tom Cruise: not since Napoleon has a man this short come so close to world domination. And yet there's no denying that as the world emerges from a prolonged pandemic lockdown, Thomas Cruise Mapother IV is being hailed as the saviour of cinema, the man who has given us all a reason to to go back the movie theatre otherwise than to watch the latest Marvel extravaganza. So how does "Top Gun: Maverick" hold up? And does the world owe Tom Cruise for showing us once again that nothing compares to practical effects projected onto a big screen? We ponder this and more in the latest Pop Culture Double Date.

The Caped Crusader has returned in solo live-action feature for the first time in a decade, folks, and this time we're spending time with his dark side, which, by the looks of things, may be his only side. In this episode, we ponder whether "The Batman" has taken more than its fair share of thematic inspiration from the The Dark Knight Trilogy, whether it was possible to shave precious minutes off the film's gargantuan running time, whether this movie really needed Catwoman and whether Robert Pattinson is a worthy wearer of the cowl.

The year's most anticipated film has finally landed in Australia, and it's a big one – a film adaptation of a supposedly "unfilmable" novel, a novel so vast that the last time it was brought to the silver screen, no less formidable a director than David Lynch disavowed the final product. We ask ourselves whether this movie is too beautiful for its own good, whether the characters are swamped the landscape and soundscape that Denis Villeneuve conjures, whether Paul Atreides is a cipher and whether his journey towards his messianic fate is handled in a way that does no justice to his character in the novel.

After 15 years and 5 movies, Daniel Craig has finally hung up his Walther PPK in favour of doing his rather impressive Foghorn Leghorn impersonation as Benoit Blanc for years to come. But even as we say goodbye to the Craig incarnation of James Bond, we have to ask: Is this final outing any good? Where does it rank among the Craig films? Does it redeem the franchise after the dumpster fire that was "Spectre"? Does it hint at interesting new directions for this granddaddy of film franchises? And who could possibly step into the tux now that Craig has left the building?

As large parts of Australia came out of lockdown, we went back into the cinema, this time to watch the latest big screen offering from Marvel Studios about a month later than the rest of the world. The big questions this week include the following: Is Simu Liu completely overshadowed by Tony Leung? Despite the big spectacle on offer, does this movie say something about families, particularly Asian families, that we weren't expecting? And is the third act of the movie a problem?

We conclude our Harry Potter re-watch with the earth-shaking final entry in this series of films. For all the heroics of our intrepid titular character, is this really Severus Snape's movie? Is Narcissa Malfoy the secret MVP of the Harry Potter universe? Was it right that Neville Longbottom should be the final wielder of the sworn of Gryffindor? Did we really need the post-time jump epilogue at the end of the movie? And what does it say about the long arc of the story we've just watched that in the final shot of this movie, Harry and Hermione stand next to each other in the centre of the frame with their respective partners either out of shot or relegated to the background?

We're in the home stretch of our Harry Potter rewatch, folks, and we find ourselves asking whether this is the weirdest and weakest entry in the entire series. Does the movie suffer from a lack of any scenes at Hogwarts? Is the hint of a love triangle between Harry, Hermione and Ron at all believable? Does the ending land with the emotional punch that the makers hoped? And does this movie do anything beyond the setting the scene for the climax to come? Come for the recap, and stay for the deeper and more considered discussion than any of us had expected.

In the cinematic adaptation of the penultimate entry in the Harry Potter series of novels, Severus Snape, Draco Malfoy and Albus Dumbledore each get a moment to shine and to deliver an emotional wallop. But does this make up some of the weird disjointedness of this movie? Does the blossoming "romance" between Harry Potter and Ginny Weasley make any sense? Does jealous Hermione make any more sense? And how does this film set us up for the climax of the franchise?

"Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" aka The One with Dolores Phoenix. Or at least that's how it seems, as this most memorably unpleasant of villains in the Harry Potter universe takes over Hogwarts, and with it, our screens, big and small. Is this the movie in the series with the least sense of mystery? Does Sirius Black display uncharacteristic levels of wisdom in his interactions with Harry? Does this movie do the battle between light and dark in a single person better than the Star Wars franchise? And is a political allegory for the Bush Administration and the War on Terror? These are the big topics we take on in the latest Pop Culture Double Date.