Reviews

A powerful and action-packed ending but....

Of all of the incredible (and by 'incredible' I mean outside of the boundaries of credibility) aspects of this story, the idea that someone would put a tracking device into a cookie (biscuit in the UK) for a child to accidentally swallow when eating the cookie seemed the most ridiculous to me.

Firstly, how do they put it into the cookie?

Was it included in the mixture before putting the mixture into the oven? If so, it must have needed to withstand the heat of the cooking process.

Or was it inserted into the cookie after it left the oven? If so, how?

How would they be certain that the child would eat the cookie?

If they did, how would they be certain that the child would not crunch and destroy or simply spit out the tracker when eating the cookie?

Were they not worried that the device might be damaged and rendered useless by the acid and digestive juices inside the child's stomach?

Were they not worried that the device might pass through the digestive system within a few hours and be expelled during the process of defecation?

Why did they not simply sew the tracking device into the clothing of the child?

Or, if it was small enough to swallow, why not inject it into the child's body?

This seemed a feature of the story that should have been edited out at the writing stage, long before filming began.

I have problems with this film, when thinking about it afterwards. We are initially shown what we think is the truth behind the murder from the perspective of a lawyer, played by Keanu Reeves, although the ending reveals that we were told a completely distorted view. We are briefly shown the murder from the perspectives of the wife and the son (who is also the defendant in the trial) of the victim.

However, at no point are we shown the scene from the perspective of the prosecution lawyer or of the jury. I am not a legal expert, but if I was a member of the jury I would ask the simple question "Who killed the victim?" Bearing in mind that the defendant confessed to the crime, his fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, he was known to be present at the scene just after the murder was committed and, based upon his allegations of being repeatedly raped by the victim, he had a clear motivation to kill him. Furthermore, he was tall and strong enough to do so. No evidence is presented that would suggest that anyone else was responsible for the murder. To use the Sherlock Holmes maxim, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". Had there been a semi-competent detective involved in the story, instead of a couple of bumbling cops and a complacent coroner, a different verdict might have resulted.

If I had been a member of the jury, I would argue that the defendant had the means, motive and opportunity to kill the victim. The supposed fact that the victim was an unpleasant man who raped him - for which no evidence was presented - does not excuse the defendant from killing him. I don't think that the argument "The victim was beating up his mother (and not for the first time, according to the defendant) so it was acceptable for the defendant to grab a ceremonial dagger from the wall and plunge it into his father's chest!" would be enough to make me vote 'not guilty' to the crime of murder.

I would sit in the jury room and say to my colleagues, "If the defendant did not kill the victim, who did? It may have been a 'spur of the moment' act provoked by the victim, but that does not justify it!" Based upon the evidence presented, I could not find the defendant 'not guilty' of the crime of murder, whether premeditated or not, unless I had decided that he was covering up for someone else, most likely his mother or the neighbour. In that case, the defendant aided and abetted the murder by pretending to do it and lying about his involvement in court. These may be minor offences compared with premeditated murder, but (in my opinion) this does not make him 100% innocent and free to walk out of the door at the end.

When the story came out about the abuse that the defendant allegedly suffered at the hands of the victim, why did the prosecutor not question the defendant more on this, instead of standing there with a shocked look on his face? Why did he not ask for evidence or details of previous rapes? Why did he not ask why the defendant had never complained about this before? And why did the prosecutor not change the charge from premeditated murder to justifiable homicide? If the jury were going to believe the defendant's rape allegations, that would prove a strong motivation for him committing the murder.

I simply cannot believe that the legal system in the USA says "Because this young man and his mother seem to have been terribly abused by the victim (even though the evidence is limited to a few bruises, which could have been self-inflicted), it was OK for one or both of them to kill him by stabbing him in the chest."

Having said that, most of the acting was OK, even though the range of emotions displayed by Reeves, the mother and the defendant were fairly limited. Reeves may not be the most expressive actor in the world, but his sulky attitude of "My client is not co-operating with me so I won't go out of my way to help him" could be interpreted as either professional incompetence, a sign that he was hiding something or that the actor was not fully committed to the role.

Leaving aside the questionable technique that was used to drill a hole in the wall in order to access the water in the hull, this stimulates these questions:-

1. "Why was there not a tap built into the wall to access this water, when dying of thirst due to the complicated water recycling system breaking down was clearly a reasonable possibility?"

Also, it is not clear to me:

2. "What kind of radiation would be able to pass through the (presumably metal) walls of the hull but be unable to pass through water held in the walls of the hull to absorb this radiation?" Also:

3. "Would it not have been possible to put a coat of paint capable of absorbing this radiation on the outside of the hull, so it would not be necessary to have the 'protective shell' of water there?" And:

4. "Where, exactly, was this radiation coming from?" If I was a cynic, I might suggest that the main purpose of having a water 'shell' in the hull was to allow the writers to come up with a plot line involving a desperate attempt to access this water!

The temperature outside of the spaceship is mentioned as being close to Absolute Zero at around -270 degrees Celsius. On that basis, unless there was incredible thermal insulation in the hull walls, it would be reasonable to assume that the temperature of the water in the hull would be below 0 degrees Celsius, i.e. It would be present there as ice. As a result, when the tap was opened by Commander Green from outside the spaceship:

5. "Why did liquid water come spurting out?" And:

6. "What caused the pressure to make the water spurt out?" It could not be a head of pressure caused by gravity, which causes water to come out of a tap or faucet on Earth.

If, for some reason, the water in the hull was in the liquid state and some magical force generated the pressure which caused it to spurt out into deep space:

7. "What forces caused the water to stay together in the form of droplets, instead of immediately spreading out and forming a fine spray or aerosol?" Furthermore, if the temperature outside the hull was -270 degrees Celsius:

8. "Why did the water droplets not instantly turn into crystals of ice, instead of staying in the liquid state before being attracted to the spacesuit by static electricity (described as a 4th grade Science experiment) and somehow magically collected in plastic bags?"

I realise that it must have been impossible to convincingly film the series on Earth whilst pretending to be in zero gravity, so I am willing to overlook all of the objects sitting on tables etc. Throughout the spaceship, but - in my opinion - this does not justify having a storyline involving 'tapping' the hull of the ship to extract liquid water at temperatures that it would undoubtedly be, or quickly become, solid water.

That 'The Night Agent' (limp title, by the way) was taken from a novel is apparent from the way that the story flows, in a largely time-linear fashion, with few and only brief explanatory flashbacks. Furthermore, there is a continuity to the plot, rather than an episodic tone, which too often happens in stories told in a series, with individuals appearing one week that you sense are going to make a small but telling contribution before being killed off before the credits to that portion of the story roll.

Our unlikely pair of heroes - or 'star-crossed lovers', if you care to see them in a Romeo and Juliet context - are brought together when a married couple of secret agents are accidently overheard by their niece, Rose, discussing something of significant 'national importance' before being wiped out by a pair of professional hitpersons. Before dying, they provide Rose with a secret telephone number answered by an FBI agent, Peter, located (for some unexplained reason) in a windowless office in the bowels of the White House.

As all of this takes place in the first half of Chapter One, I do not feel that it is giving too much away of the plot by explaining this unlikely connection. Suffice to say, the story evolves over ten chapters to a conclusion which may be seen as a somewhat far-fetched 'tangled web we weave', but not impossible, involving the usual motivations of a lust for power and a greed for money. Peter and Rose (maybe, with names like that, I should have likened them to a fairy tale rather than Shakespeare's lovers!) are the central characters in the story and they play their roles competently and credibly; Peter (Gabriel Basso) is somewhat wooden and one-dimensional, but that may suit the impassive nature of his character, whilst Rose starts off as the stereotypical 'helpless heroine', but eventually reveals a tough and resourceful core. There is little 'chemistry' between Peter and Rose, but there would not necessarily be any, as he was just doing his job and she was trying to cope with the sudden deaths of her aunt and uncle, the only remaining members of her family at the start of the film.

The leads are surrounded by a decent cast, including the two hitpersons, various colleagues and friends of Peter and, eventually, the most powerful person in the world, namely POTUS. One of the characters, a short and feisty female senior member of the White House staff, reminded me a great deal of the character in 'Veep' played by Julia Louis-Dreyfus, in that she seemed incapable of completing a sentence with 'dropping the F-bomb' in it! Unusually, at times we see the story through the eyes of the hitpersons, who are revealed not as 'faceless goons' but as individuals simply trying to do a job - however unpleasant and illegal - and get through life.

There is the usual allocation of people hitting, and being hit by, other people, shooting at, and being shot at by, other people and car chases, but these moments are never excessive, disproportionate or irrelevant to the plot. Like peeling away the layers of an onion, the story becomes revealed in a stepwise fashion in a way that never seems illogical or ridiculous. The pacing of the development of the story is slow at times, but without ever becoming tedious.

Whilst I am sure that there are a thousand and one reasons why what takes place could never happen in reality, at no time did I feel that the actions of individuals were out of context with their roles and personalities and nothing stood out, for me, as impossible or incongruous. This was a well-made, entertaining and gripping tale which I would recommend to anyone with the interest and concentration to follow a story from a small, insignificant beginning to a powerful, albeit unlikely, climax.

8 out of 10 stars.

Set in Los Angeles, USA, in the late 1960's, 'Aquarius' centres upon Samson Hodiak, an American police homicide detective with Ukrainian ancestry portrayed admirably by David Duchovny.

In a work environment epitomised by racism, sexism, homophobia, misogyny and frequent swigs of bourbon in the locker room but without the advantages provided by mobile phones and the internet, Hodiak struggles to cope with daily murders as well as an alcoholic ex-wife and an army son who has gone AWOL from his regiment in Vietnam.

In case this was not enough, Hodiak has the small problem of the Manson Family, led by the notorious Charlie Manson, to deal with.

Having never experienced life in a LA police station in the 1960's, it is difficult for me to comment upon the authenticity of the setting, but Hodiak is a combination of caring and cruel in order to solve the cases that he is confronted with. His sardonic humour and wit elevates him above most of those around him, although some of his colleagues seem to fit obligatory stereotypes more suited to a comedy such as 'Police Squad'.

The depiction of Manson is also particularly effective, as he is physically unimpressive but has a charisma that is able to both seduce young women and intimidate men. I am not saying whether it was an accurate portrayal or not, but it was a credible combination of viciousness (the result of an abusive upbringing) and desperation. Whilst he was clearly a highly unpleasant man, it came across that there were logical reasons behind his selfish, manipulative behaviour, rather than simply 'a strain of evil'.

Most people who have heard of, and especially those who have an interest in, Manson will connect him and his followers to the murder of Sharon Tate, the pregnant wife of film director Roman Polanski, and several of her friends. Amongst movie lovers, this link is likely to have become exacerbated by the release (filmed after the screening of 'Aquarius') of Quentin Tarantino's 'Once Upon a Time in Hollywood', which provides a revisionist 'alternative' version to this tragedy. However, this event does not occur until the end of the second series, although the makers of 'Aquarius' - possibly in an attempt to maintain the attention of their audience - start introducing 'flash forward' scenes of this grisly climax in several episodes before this.

Interspersed with actual events from the time, such as the assassination of both Reverend Martin Luther King Junior and presidential hopeful Robert Kennedy and the first Moon landing, the series progresses as slowly as the actions of the authorities to clamp down on the actions of the Manson family.

8 out of 10 stars.

Gracie Marie Bradley plays the title role of an innocent young singer who has been thoroughly and exhaustively trained by her mother, also a talented singer, with the intention of Beauty achieving a lucrative career. Bullied by her father into signing a record contract offered by her prospective manager, played by Sharon Stone, Beauty is whisked away to recording studios in New York. But her parents disapprove of Jasmine, her long-time lover, both due to the influence that they believe that she has upon Beauty (thereby weakening their control over her) and the negative effect that a lesbian relationship could have upon her future public image.

Bradley plays the role of Beauty skilfully, balancing the pressures imposed upon her by her family, her manager and her lover in a believable manner. Giancarlo Esposito and Niecy Nash are credible as the domineering father and controlling mother respectively, although the roles of her two brothers are less convincing.

As the film ends early in Beauty's career, it would be interesting to see what lay ahead for her in a sequel.

Time travel is such a popular part of movie history that it must be difficult to come up with a new angle on the topic. However, in the five minutes or so that the writers must have spent coming up with the idea for 'The Adam Project', they should at least have tried to eliminate ideas that seem to have been lifted in their entirety from obvious predecessors, such as 'Back to the future' and the 'Terminator' trilogy.

Ryan Reynolds plays the role of a jet pilot who travels back in time from 2050 to, initially, 2021 and then 2018, in order to stop the creation of a time travel machine that - conveniently for the plot - was invented by his father. Why has he chosen to make this drastic move and why he appears to be doing it alone is never clearly revealed, apart from vague hints that time travel in 2050 was a Bad Thing. And how will he bring about this incredible change? By the lame method of 'blowing up' the machine, despite 'blown up' machines being capable of being repaired. As in the 'Terminator', our hero is followed by 'baddies' looking to foil him in his quest.

The film does its best to make the most of Reynolds' charm and sense of humour, but the chemistry between him and his younger self, wife and father is not up to his usual standard, and the opportunity for a connection between him and his (unaware) mother is not really exploited.

The CGI of jet aircraft and soldiers/robots appearing out of thin air is effective but the final fight between them and our hero lasts far too long.

And was this really the best choice for the title?

This version of 'Pride and Prejudice' differs considerably from both the book and the celebrated filmed versions of recent times, such as the BBC television series with Colin Firth and the film starring Keira Knightley.

It is clear that the direct source of the plot is more a play then a novel, from the way that the characters are exaggerated and how so much of the action takes place off camera. Consequently, rather than coming across as a classic romance, the story is presented more like a Shakespearian farce.

The comic nature of some of the players, such as Elizabeth's mother and her first suitor, Mr. Collins, is merely hinted at in the book and developed tenderly in the film and TV series. Here, however, they are turned into caricatures to be mocked by the other players and the audience. The intelligence of the daughters, including both Jane and Elizabeth, is diminished and they are seen as nothing better than immature husband hunters.

Of all of the actors to have played Darcy, none have had the potential to portray his supercilious arrogance and 'selfish disdain for the needs of others' than the illustrious Laurence Olivier, but instead he comes across as disappointingly weak and insipid.

The most interesting, in my eyes, deviation from the original novel is the contribution towards the end of the story by Lady Catherine de Burgh. Whilst in the book she has Darcy lined up to marry her own daughter and, as a result, provides stern opposition to Elizabeth - which ironically draws Darcy towards her - in this version she acts on Darcy's behalf to ascertain the honesty of Elizabeth's true feelings for him.

Overall, the intensity of the passion of the novel is watered down and trivialised for the sake of laughs which makes for a pleasant, albeit disappointing, tale.