About the Reviewer

Who am I?

I'm Andy Kemp — a technology architect based in the UK.

My day job involves analysing complex systems, evaluating decisions, assessing governance frameworks, managing risk, understanding user experience and helping organisations deliver technology successfully.

I have absolutely no formal film education, no press credentials and no industry connections.

What I do have is a professional habit of pulling things apart to understand how they work.

Unfortunately, that habit doesn't stop when the lights go down.

Why review films?

Because films are systems.

Some are brilliantly designed.

Some somehow function despite obvious flaws.

Others appear to have bypassed governance entirely.

Most film criticism focuses on cinematography, acting, directing and cultural context. That's all important.

I'm interested in something slightly different.

Does the story architecture hold together?

Do the decisions make sense?

Are the rules of the world consistent?

Were the risks understood?

Did the stakeholders make sensible choices?

Was there any evidence of governance?

Most importantly: did the film deliver the experience it promised?

Over time these reviews have evolved into something of a post-incident review for fictional organisations. Some films become architecture assessments. Some become governance reviews. Some become programme assurance reports. Occasionally they become cautionary tales about what happens when nobody follows the RAID log.

What are the reviews actually judging?

The overall rating reflects one thing: how much I enjoyed the film.

That's it.

The score is not generated from the scorecard. It is not a weighted calculation. It is not a scientific process.

A film can have terrible governance, catastrophic decision making and an alarming lack of documentation while still being an absolute masterpiece.

The scorecard exists because analysing films through the lens of architecture, governance, risk, change management and delivery is fun.

The overall score exists because films are meant to be enjoyed.

The Scorecards

Most reviews include a scorecard. The categories vary depending on the film.

A fantasy adventure may be assessed differently from a war film.

A science fiction epic may require a full RAID review.

A poorly governed transformation programme masquerading as a space opera may receive special treatment.

Scores are given out of 5. The categories are intentionally subjective. Much like the reviews themselves.

Review Principles

A few things tend to influence my reviews:

• Strong world-building
• Consistent internal logic
• Memorable characters
• Good storytelling
• Meaningful consequences
• Sensible decision making (where appropriate)
• Spectacularly poor decision making (when entertaining)

Bonus points may occasionally be awarded for:

• Excellent creature design
• Memorable villains
• Well-executed practical effects
• Unintentionally useful project management lessons

Disclosures

I pay for my own cinema tickets.

I pay for my own streaming subscriptions.

I have no affiliation with any studio, distributor or PR company.

I am not a film critic. I am a technology architect with opinions.

All scores are final. Unless I change my mind.

Contact & Comments

Comments on reviews are available via GitHub Discussions.

If you think I've missed something, misunderstood something or committed a serious governance assessment error, you're welcome to let me know.

Whether I agree is an entirely different matter.