Reviews

I have really liked other Tim Burton movies, but this was just odd, heartless & cold. I adore Johnny Depp but he is no Wonka. Here he just comes across as a creepy Michael Jackson type character with an effeminate, whispery voice, plastic looking grey skin & looking far too young to play Wonka. From the time line of the story Wonka should be aged in his mid 50's at least, as he wished to find a child to whom he can tell his secret to before he retires. Regardless of these facts, the script does not help as it comes across as odd. Even the CGI is not that good. Where is the joy & wonder on the childrens faces when they first see the chocolate room? Why are the parents oddly calm when their kids are dissapearing to face some nasty fate? What is the stuff with Wonka's dentist dad backstory? & what about the Ommpa Loompas? I have always loved the work of Deep Roy, but to have hundereds of his clones just comes across as lazy film making to me. Would CGI Ooompa Loomepas have been better? Very sorry but this movie left me with more questions than answers, however I did enjoy Helena Bonham Carter as Mrs Bucket, which was perhpas the only highlight for me. I also have no doubt that the child actors are perhaps very good, but the script they were working from was just strange. In short I did not feel as if this movie has much heart or soul. Perhaps it is good that this is not a long movie, in fact parts of the story seem to be rushed, so it does not drag on.

Well some younger people may still enjoy this, but I simply could got get past the weirdness of it all. Sorry.

This series is both dark & compelling. The acting is absolutely spot on & I really loved Jessica Gunning (Martha) for her protrayal of his deranged stalker. There are also some gaping holes in the story, & unanswered questions which I wont go into as this will make the review far to long. What it does show is the super low level of police complacency when they failed to act when he first reported his stalker. Anyway back to the series. The first 3 episodes are stunning, but I felt it lost it's way somewhere in the middle. Donny's monolouge from episode 6 was good but far too long. Also this is supposed to be taken from a real life viral monolouge he did which is now nowhere to be found on the internet. The acting is terrific, but creepy. Almost verging on horror movie "creepy" but this is keeping with the story. Also this is quite depressing & perhaps not something you should watch if your feeling down. The main character is supposed to be a comedian, but there is little to no comedy in this, however if you are in the right frame of mind "Reindeer" could be a really enjoyable show. As for me I am on the fence with this one. I loved the acting, pace & even the story, but it was a little too depressing for my tastes.

Really enjoyed this high production value drama. It is an addicting watch from start to finish! Absolutely adored both Rufus Sewell (Prince Andrew) & Gillian Anderson (Emily Maitlis) as both parts were beautiful acted. The flow of the story is good & it is engaging to the point of being absorbing. The script is good if a little creaky in places, but the acting really made up for this. This is certainly an intelligent thinking persons drama but it lacks answers to many questions as to why Andrew had a close realationship with Epstien in the first place, & just leads us to think what other nasty horrible things are the elite of this world up to. Personally I would like to see a series based on this story which explains the details better & perhaps answers question like why Ghislaine Maxwell has been found guilty & imprisioned, yet her cliet list has never been revealed, & said vile clients are still walking free. Money talks maybe! Anyway this is a superb, compelling drama which is easy to follow, has a nice pace & terrific acting. Enjoy this one but it does not explain much beyond the official narrative. This is just good entertaining drama!

Films at the moment seem to be packed full of stunning & beautiful CGI effects, but not much else. The Lion King live action is certainly no different. The Disney original from 1994 has charm, class, excitement, humor & most importantly soul. It is an undoubted masterpiece. This version has little or non of these qualities. Yes the animation & CGI are absolutely gorgeous, but I was expecting to see David Attenborough pop up at any second to narrate the scene. It felt like a nicely done wildlife documentary without the bits where animals eat each other. Also dispite a wonderfull cast & the awesome velvety tones of the fabulous James Earl Jones, the voice acting seemed very off somehow, & almost miscast. The only bit I really enjoyed was the "Wimoweh" song (originally written by Zulu artist Solomon Linda as "Mbube" meaning Lion) which was nicely done.

Overall this is not a bad film, & I feel children will love it. I feel it just falls into the trap of not being as good as the original. Remakes are rarely, if ever as good as the original, & the Lion King is no exception. Yet I have to ask, is there no original talent at Disney Corps anymore? Why all the remakes? Can no one come up with something new?

Finally, when I first saw The Lion King in 1994 (I was a 25 year old woman) I freely admit I was drawn to tears in the opening scenes. I had shivvers down my back & was completely enthralled. Some years later I saw the awesome stage show, not just once but several times, so I consider myself a fan of the story, but this latest offering, for me falls flat, as flat as a flat packed new bookcase. I heard the Lion's roar in 1994...This movie is sadly just a cubs whimper!

Just got round to seeing this as I was always been fascinated by the horrible murder of Sasha Litvinenko. The adverts for this at the time showed a lot of the superb David Tennent, yet dissapointingly for me, his talents are only featured in the first episode. The acting from some of the cast is also a little subpar & the story telling is quite slow in places, but overall this is a reasonable, watchable drama.

If you are looking to watch this as a way of discovering some of Mr Litvinenko's fascinating background, I feel you will be sadly dissapointed. The story mostly revolves around the British police investigation into the poisoning & the potential effects such a poisoning could have had on the safety & security of Britain. This is essentially a police drama, & dispite the title, it is not a biography of this intelligent but tragic man. However the title gives us the impression that this drama would revolve around Mr Litvinenko himself, but it dosen't. This is such a shame.

In my honest opinion David Tennent should have featured in more than one episode, as his acting in this role is absolutely sublime. Even his Russian accent is near perfect. His part in this drama really show cases his awesome talent at playing all kinds of eclectic characters, effortlessly. I feel his talent is almost wasted in this here, which is sad. That said, however, if you enjoy a true to life police drama, you will certainly enjoy this, but be prepared for a superb first two episodes, yet the second two are something of a let down. Lastly if you are going to make a drama about a real life event & have the main character name in the title, at least make the drama more centred on that character, because "Litvinenko" is not about the man, himself, but rather the investigation that follows after his very tragic death. 5 stars for David Tennent. You are a credit to you're proffession sir x.

The story of J. Robert Oppenheimer is very worthy of telling. He was a deep, fascinating man of sparkling intelligence and I was delighted to hear that this movie was being made. And even better with one of my favorite actors. With his eyes like sapphires set in crystal paperweights & a sublime acting talent to rival the greats, the fantastic Cillian Murphy in the lead role, well I just HAD to see this. Yet I am sorry to say the result of the movie iteslf was something of a let down.

I shall start by saying this movie requires 110% of your attention, if you are to enjoy it in any way. I gave it this & I did enjoy the superb acting from all the cast. The cast give it their all & my 5 stars is mostly for this reason. But the movie itself is let down by bloated, yet fragmented storytelling. Distracting flash back scenes, & a soundtrack that on one hand makes your ears bleed & on the other you can not hear character dialouge. This movie really needs subtitles. Also insulting the Sacred Hindu texts of the Bhagavad Gita is absolutely not on. I am a British woman who has lived & worked in India & I have deep respect for the Hindu faith, so why on earth was this included?

Now onto the story itself. We are missing such a lot here. Oppenheimer was known as the father of the atomic bomb, but there is scant storytelling about said bomb beyond badly done CGI of rather limp explosions. Where is the "Tickling the Dragons Tail"? Or explanations about the "Demon Core" as these are missing. You can't really tell a story about Oppenheimer if you exclude what he actually invented. In fact in 1989 a much better film was released called "Fat man & little boy" which is far more superior & explains these things better, so I suggest people watch this instead. However in Oppenheimer 2023 their is barely anything about the science & its horrific effects, as well as the horrilbe deaths & endeless suffering his invention caused. There are some mentions of his horrible dilemma of actually dropping the bomb, but these are scant & rather superficial.

All in all Oppenheimer tries too hard to be epic & it is about an hour longer than it needs to be, which is why some people are calling it boring. Personally I do not think it is boring as the acting in this movie is so good. The acting carries it! But to tell a real story of its subject, it would need a complet rewrite & a cut of all the nonsensical, long drawn out scenes that mean nothing. Basically if you are going to watch this, give it your full attention, make sure you have subtitles & enjoy the acting as it is excellent.

5 stars for all the cast as you did a terrific job!

Firstly I adore del Torro. I have enjoyed almost everything he has done & consider him a genius of modern movie making.(I am a massive monster movie fan!) For me the Shape of Water is no exception. I loved it! But ...

Ok, onto the review. TSoW is a fairytale wrapped up in a love letter to the Hollywood Golden era. It tells the story of a mute lady cleaner (janitor) Elisa (Sally Hawkins) who falls in love with an "asset" at a top secret American base during the 60's Cold War era. The story telling is sublime & the direction near perfect. The movie is a visual feast too, which will delight those of us of del Torro's generation (like me) with temptations of deep nostalgia. Visually it is almost a work of art from the first few seconds of the film. The acting too is superb. I loved Octivia Spencer (Snowpiercer) as the friend of our heronie, which was wonderfully acted. However ther are some inexplicable mistakes in the story which I wont go into as I will be firmly in spoiler teritory. Also parts of the story are stiched with a delicate silken thread of collectivism. To be fair it is almost unnoticable but non the less movies that go down this route are very distracting to us, the audience. We do not need to see our lovley herione in the bath having some solo lady fun as it is unnessisary to the story. We are also told that this story is about the Other. I have been an "Other" most of my life. Bullied at school for my disabillities.. Oh I know what it is to be an "Other" But do we really need a fairytale about Othering? Please leave that to the other collectivists in Hollywood. Well this aspect & the "lady solo" scenes really put me off, sorry. I was also a little put off by the Hollywood all singing all dancing Musical number which seemed, forced, strange & almost out of place. TSoW is also a 15 certificate which seems fair as I certainly would not show this to children. Lastly this IS a good film! It is absorbing & does what movies used to do which is take its audience away from the rat race of real life into a world of fantasy & magic. It is pure escapeism. Just how it should be.

A wonderfully escapist movie with flaws. But escapism is what we need.

My husband likes this so I borrowed his DVD of it to give it a go. Oh dear! Sorry but I lasted an hour before I hit the "stop button" as I could not take anymore. Please don't get me wrong I adore Guy Richie & Jude law but I belive they were miscast here. Now when your making a movie about a fantasy legend your really have a blank canvas & a lot of poetic lisense but there is a point when things turn into silly. The CGI spoils it. I did not know who was fighting who. Giant Elephants? & fireworks thousands of years before the Chinese invented them (?) This movie is litrally fancy ott CGI, big names & an overbaked story & that is it. I adore Arthurian legend stories normally. I loved the two part "Merlin" from the late 90's with Sam Neil (even if the effects were rubbish) but this movie has some good effects but not much meat on its bones. The only good part for me was Jude Law as the baddie as for me he is a great actor & nice eye candy, same for Guy Richie, but both of them can do much better than this. For me only an updated late 90's "Merlin" would work, possibly with the sublime Gary Oldman as an old Merlin. However Authurian legend like Tudor history has been done to death at the movies & on tv recently. Why don't movie makers turn to telling legends of different countries for a change? Like in the 80's I loved "Monkey!" as may countries have awesome myths & legends, so lets hear thoes stories for a change!

Let's be honest here. Remakes of historically top quality films are never as good as the originals & this updated version of Lady & the Tramp is no different. & I think it fails as it really has no heart or soul that the original had oodles of! I am not concerned about interratial marriages or time frames for said marriage as this is a fantasy film, but several other things for me really let this movie down badly. Firstly the vocie acting was all wrong & terribly misscast. The script was all over the place. Changing Jocks gender was also a little weird (why?) & the exclusion of the Siamese cat song really let things down. In the original the cats are singing about their breed, (they are Siamese cats) not the country of Thailand (used to be called Siam) It's a bit like a British bull dog singing God save the King, so I dont see why the cat song was deemed offensive (again why?) The cat song sets out their mischievious nature as they wreck the house. The song in this version was simply nonsensical. However I like that they kept a few songs from the original such as "He's a Tramp" which I love.

Finally, I don't think it fair to judge this movie by comparing it to the far superior orgininal. If you watch this version as a stand alone movie rather than a remake, it is not too bad & children who will have never seen the original would probabally love it.

Seasons 1 & 2 of the Crown was absolutely wonderful! Claire Foy was just brilliant as the young queen & this was backed by a superb support cast. The writing was mostly excellent as was the direction & cinematography, which made for a totally fun & engaging audience experience...THEN..What the heck happened after season 3? Worse still season 5 was a slow dragging, snorefest which made watching paint dry look interesting! I will admit I have not looked into the writers of the later seasons, but even the acting was bad dispite some top actors being among the cast. HBC was about the best as Princess Margaret, but then again I have always enjoyed her work. Next (in the later seasons) came the political angle. When I watch drama like this I wish to be engaged & entertained. What I don't want (& I suspect I am not alone) is a heavy dose of socialism in said drama. Especially when said drama is about the British Royal Family, which is, when all said & done a conservative institution. Why on earth put the political opinions of the creators, writers & director into the Crown? I am simply not interested in their politics. After the politics of later seasons we also have to put up with an anti-British, anti monarchist leaning. Again I must ask "why"? If you are going to make a watchable, believable drama about the British royal family surely you would not want to include, what I can only term as leftest propaganda. All this is really quite sad as the Crown had an absolutely brilliant start, but as the seasons have gone on the points I have mentioned above, just get worse & worse, which in the end makes this practically unwatchable. Sorry.

My 4 starts are strictly for seasons 1 & 2 & I would like to give 10 stars for Clair Foy's excellent portrayal of the young Queen Elizabeth II which was so thrilling to watch. But after season 3 the Crown goes really down hill, sadly. Lastly a note to the writers: Please leave politics out of drama as it spoils it & apolitical people like me (I am neither right or left) find it distracting at best & very boring. Please don't spoil good drama!

I have always loved Chris Eccelston, so seeing this was a must for me, but apart from the leads the acting was really not top notch, with mumbled lines & make up props like wigs that looked rather silly. This really is not for me (The series Artful Dodger is better for production values) but I can see how this would appeal to children & young adults alike, who may enjoy it. Some of the story lines did not make much sense & character development was lacking in many areas when a story like this needs good strong characters to make it believable. For me Dodger was hollow & not really attention grabbing, leaving me to think this has all been done before. & YES! Of course it has! The story has been televised & made into films for many years & a lot of those previous attempts are much more engaging than Dodger is, but children will like it.

First off I will admit I am a huge horror movie fan & I can say hand on heart that the "creepy" factor in this is absolutely sky high. I believe this is rendered because of the utterly superb acting & direction. Steve Coogan actually becomes the monster who was Jimmy Savile & almost every line he delivers oozes with sinister menace. I also loved the wonderful Gemma Jones (Harry Potter, Duchess of Duke St) who was fantastic as Saviles mother. In fact I can not fault the acting from anyone in the Reckoning. I know a lot of people were upset this was even made, but in absolutely no way does it gloryfy Savile. The drama shows how he hid in plain sight, teased the tv & press by hints of his abuse & took the establishment for a ride. I am marking this down by two stars for two reasons though. Firstly it's portrayal of Lady Thatcher & secondly it's portrayal of Catholicism & Christianity in general.

Well many people said they would never watch this, but I feel this is sad because they are missing some wonderful acting & a high value production.

Well done all the cast! X.

Just watched this lovely series from start to finish on DVD & I am almost embarrassed to say it made me cry. The beautiful location shoots, gorgeous animals & simple stories with the best moral messages I have ever seen on film, all rolled into one show. Grizzly Adams made me realise that life is a gift & we should not waste it. It also made me want to sling on my backpack (again!) & run off to live a simple, fulfilling life in the mountains! However it is almost a crime that this delightful show will never grace mainstream telivision today. This is so sad. The star of the show though is clearly Ben the Grizzly bear (in real life a female Grizzly called Bozo) who's bear acting skilled paved the way for Grizzly superstar "Bart the Bear" (Bart can be seen in the opening shots as he plays the cub rescued by Adams) who graced many excellent films.

Anyway onto some critique.

Most of the stories are very simple. Perhaps too simple to keep some people engaged. However it is the messages that these stories convery to the audience that make the difference. Grizzly Adams, Ben, Mad Jack, Nakoma & Number 7 teaches us lessons on the priceless values of having decent virtues & good, solid morality as well as friendship, trust, compromise, teamwork & a love & respect for nature & animals. Ofcourse Grizzly Adams does have it's faults, but it comes pretty close to being the perfect family entertainment show. But as lovely as it is this would never be shown on mainstram tv today. & even if it were the show would be accused of "white Saviousism" as Adams saves the life of a Native American Warrior (Nakoma) whithout looking at the fact that it is Nakoma who teaches Adams the life saving lessons of living in the wild & being a real mountain man. Adams would have never made it in the wild if it was not for Nakoma! & then there is the plain simple fact this show is simply "Too Nice" to be shown today.

If everyone today lived our lives with the lessons Grizzly Adams shares of freidship, teamwork, respect & compromise, this world would be a much better place...."Maybe..."