Reviews

Firstly, I am astonished by the volume of favourable comments. For me, especially after all the hype, this was a major disappointment. Sheen delivers his usual convincing impersonation (in voice at least) and Spall is typically very good. The actual film is just bad. Others have highlighted the glaring inaccuracies, but the film doesn't even live up to its own name. The time spent on Clough's days at Leeds are not given a great deal of exposure. My first football match was back in about 1964, so I have plenty of memories of the era involved, but frankly I have sat through 0-0 draws that were far more entertaining. Clough was an interesting character, did that come across? Not really. More a caricature than a homage. 3/10

Unlike previous reviewers I am not an acolyte of Julie Walters, though I did always admire "Mo" Mowlam. This film seems to go to great lengths to make Ms. Walters look, and for the most part sound like Mo but doesn't seem to bother with other characters such as Adams, Mandelson etc. The problem with that is it makes one wonder how much of the story is equally consistent? All the good stuff leading to the Good Friday Agreement is portrayed as Marjorie "Mo" Mowlam initiatives (with no help from Civil Service flunkies) and the bitter aftertaste is down to jealous colleagues. I have no doubt that Mo did a very good job, but is she really ready for sainthood? My rating of 7/10 is probably a bit mean but I cannot help but feel manipulated by filmmakers with an agenda but with no access to the facts. Mo should be admired, not worshipped.

I have just recently watched this (much vaunted) film and found it lacked *something* but I couldn't quite work out where. The film doesn't rely on heart-wrenching phone calls (like Flight 93) but focuses on the confusion and impotence, of air traffic control and a military command centre that cannot quite grasp what is going on. Very true I am sure, who the heck trains for such an event? Yet it leaves the viewer feeling cold rather than emotional. The lack of govt. and indeed military response maybe the point, but when has that been news? The passengers and crew, having realised the situation are given just enough due credit for their actions, but it all seems to come to little too late in the movie. Upon reflection perhaps what was portrayed may have been realistic, but just too sterile.

"Scottish-Asian woman returns home to save her family's ailing restaurant." That was the scant, not to mention inaccurate synopsis that I read before viewing. I rather expected a dull, perhaps gritty story of a dysfunctional family with likely a bit of outside racism thrown in for good measure. But hey, it was set in Scotland and we don't see too many films like that so I sat down to watch... So what a treat I got!! This film is well-acted (especially by the two leads) and utterly engaging. I agree parts of the plot were wafer thin but it presented as a fairytale and a cracking good one at that. It was just joyful and poignant and above all uplifting. I am Scottish but neither Asian or gay so others can discuss any significance about such matters, for me it was just a great watch and that is all I care about.

If by any chance you have not seen "Das Boot" please do not read this as it *will* contain spoilers and I would hate to ruin one of the best films ever made. My paltry words simply cannot do it justice. Claustrophobia, tension and terror pervade throughout (except in the IMO slightly unnecessary opening sequence which is mercifully brief.) For me it was a story about the captain, a stunning performance by Jurgen Prochnow who plays an experienced, U-boat captain who is not without flaws. His crew comprise a few old comrades plus a group of raw recruits and a journalist. These men are German but not Nazis (with one exception) and though they spoil for a fight with the British convoys one cannot help but be drawn to them. The captain is a complex character, he shows disdain for his own 'high command' and respect for his 'enemy' yet he does not shy away from sinking convoy ships. He makes mistakes and has victories but treats them all with a fatalistic dark humour. A very good film changes gear into an astonishing masterpiece when the crew of U-96 arrive in Vigo, Spain. The sickening opulence contrasts starkly to the conditions aboard U-96, then the orders to go on what could prove to be a suicide mission. The peril of the crew is intensified, their heroic work to survive and "go home" is followed by what is an excruciating final twist that will leave you reeling.

As I write only 90 people have rated this film which suggests very few have seen it. That is a shame. It is however a difficult film to "sell" to a modern audience so used to fast-paced action, fireballs, gore and the odd bit of gratuitous nudity. This is understated in almost every way with true heroism treated as "just get on with it chaps." Made in 1943 it clearly has a 'propaganda' element to it, ordinary British (plus one American) merchant seamen facing terrible adversity and just getting on with the job. Not a hint of melodrama in sight. In one scene having re-boarded their crippled ship, the men have to decide whether to return to N. America (safer but against prevailing winds) or try to make it home but face further possible German attacks. They take a vote! A cool, calm measured vote at that. Having laid out the possible flaws in this film I would still urge anyone to watch it. It is not a wartime epic, it is a very good film.

This is an excellent (fictional) drama centered around just one of many single acts of mindless violence, and its aftermath during the notorious "troubles" of Northern Ireland. Alistair Little at aged just seventeen feels he is ready to make his first 'kill' for the UVF, a "loyalist" paramilitary group. In the small town of Lurgan, the sectarian divide does not mean that people are not aware of others on the other side. Little and his three equally young companions may not be friendly with their given target, but they do 'know' him...but he is a Catholic and that is all that matters. The killing is witnessed by the victim's 11 yr. old brother Joe Giffen. The story moves ahead 30 years or so, Little (Liam Neeson) is to meet Giffen (James Nesbitt) for a TV show purportedly about 'reconciliation.' Nesbitt gets the most screen time and gives a highly charged performance as the super-tense Giffen prepares to meet his brother's killer. Giffen has a slightly one-dimensional view of how things have panned out over the past 30 years. He has been stuck for the most part in a tedious factory job. Little, though having served 12 years in prison now gives talks about conflict and the burden of being a killer. In Giffen's perception, Little is living it large, spouting platitudes for fat pay cheques while enjoying classy hotels and associated 'luxuries' - in short Giffen believes Little enjoys a 'rock star' lifestyle on the back of a callous murder. The TV crew located in a grand country house for this interview, ooze insincerity just as Nesbitt oozes tension. "It's all about you" they claim when really we know they just want a dramatic TV showdown. We soon learn that Giffen has nothing in mind but vengeance, he is carrying a nasty looking knife and surely intends to murder the apparently calm and measured Little, on TV if needs be. It is the introduction of Vika, a lowly runner for the TV crew who begins to throw a spanner in the works. In this grand location, the balcony is the only place anyone can smoke, both Joe Giffen and Vika take this opportunity and her empathetic/sympathetic words begin to eat into Giffen. She has (albeit briefly) met Little and visited his flat "it is not a home" "he is a broken man" are things that shatter Giffen's preconceived ideas and things he does not want to hear. He wants to kills a gloating monster not a "broken man." After Giffen refuses to take part in the interview we begin to hear a bit more of Little's side of the story. Neeson is also very good and is convincing as a man who genuinely regrets his past but tries to explain it without justifying it. The drama does not end here but I will. Watch it for yourself, it is an intense, unglamourous indictment of terrorism which is not only pertinent to NI.

Not a typical film, it looks more like a play. A series of set-piece dialogues in which it is very rare to see even three people in any given scene. Set in a non-specific 'corporate' world in nameless locations the film suggests that these people could be living near you... Chad and Howard are colleagues and friends, embittered with the world. Women, work colleagues, the system have all conspired to hold them back, nothing is their fault, they just haven't got them breaks. Chad decides to play a cruel game in which while on a six week relocation they will both 'romance' the same woman then dump her. Break her heart just for the hell of it. In their dotage they can bask in the glory of her humiliation. Though Howard appears the weaker of the two men he agrees to play an active role. These are not easy people to like, but the sad thing is they probably *do* exist somewhere near you. Chad is charisma and charm while spitting venom in private. Is Howard simply more easily led? I cannot decide, but he is no saint. They want a 'vulnerable' woman so a deaf typist is to these men ideal, they look down on women, a disabled woman even more so. I will not go any further with the actual story, it is worth sticking with despite it being at times difficult viewing. Refreshingly different.

I approached this with low expectations. A TV movie with the only two credited names in a brief guide being that of Melissa Gilbert and William Shatner... Gilbert is not a terrible actress (mostly), Shatner is well, I think we know. Thankfully the latter plays a very small part and despite poor pacing the story is enough to keep you watching if you can stay the course. Gilbert needs to know her family medical history to help prevent a premature death, it transpires she was adopted and having traced her 'birth mother' discovers her father was a rapist. Heavy stuff but handled in typical TV movie fashion. The story now turns detective, there are four possible candidates for the rape and Gilbert (happily a researcher) has to discover the right one. Apparently "inspired by a true story" - a catch all phrase that means almost nothing we go through melodrama and very inconsistent performances. This film both annoyed me, but somehow kept me watching.

Having watched this film I scored it 6/10, then after reading the bulk of other comments I wondered if I had been a little mean. I am really not sure. Being neither gay nor a bible-basher...maybe I didn't fully relate? To be honest I think the real problem is that I am not American. (Or perhaps it was set in the '80's and *surely* attitudes have changed?) There just seemed to be too many inconsistencies in the story that bothered me. Bobby has a loving family apart from his fanatical mother and vaguely ambivalent father. He has found happiness with a partner in Portland yet still his mother's words from his childhood drive him to suicide? His mother, supposedly a Christian fanatic who takes the bible literally doesn't know many key verses? Acting was very good, Ms. Weaver is as ever engrossing but though a good watch I just can't get that gushing about this film that so many others have. I'll stick with 6/10, 6.5 if I could.

This film is awful, just awful. Five kids are in detention and each one is a Hollywood cliché. We have the "jock", the "weirdo" the "geek" etc. Even the teacher / supervisor is a disinterested clot. The "tough guy" (he wears a leather jacket - ooh, scary) comes from the "wrong side of the tracks" with a drunken father. Molly Ringwald is the gal who doesn't quite fit in. Yawn. The acting is fine, the script and storyline is woeful. The set-up dictates the opening tension but of course we are given (spoon-fed) the supposedly odd alliances between these (supposedly) different characters and a vaguely mutual anti-establishment bond is formed. If you like dialogue or are over eighteen and by great fortune have missed this dross then avoid at all costs.

Forget that you are watching an animation (not at all difficult with this masterpiece.) What would you like to see in a film? A great story? You got it. Action, suspense, emotion? You get that too. How about a liberal dose of comedy but also some pathos? No worries! First rate acting? Fear not, Gromit can 'act' the socks off half of Hollywood. This film never ceases, from the build up to the not one but *two* "set-piece" classic scenes and an array of sight-gags that simply delight. This is half an hour of pure genius, unlikely to be matched ever unless Mr. Park and his gang can do it. Awarding a perfect 10 is not always easy (for me) I tend to have niggling doubts but with this gem it was always a "no-brainer."

This film is not a 'classic' but it is still very, very good. To be honest I am only motivated to write about it because of the extraordinary pathetic rating it has attained on this forum. Who cares that the game is called Championship X rather than the Superbowl? There is not a film in history that is 100% accurate. Yes, it smacks of a 'superior' made for TV film with some flimsy sketches of soap opera characters who happen to congregate at the L.A. stadium to meet their fate. So what? The tension is great and the nameless, sniper with no motive is for me a real bonus. No sob story background to 'justify' his actions is perfect. I love the irony of Chuck "out of my cold dead hand" Heston appearing in a film in which a freak with a high-powered rifle is free to shoot dead anyone he chooses :) Great cast, great movie.

Where do I begin? Probably best to declare as a UK citizen I have only experienced the NHS, though I have been to the US thank goodness I never had need of medical treatment there. Secondly I am not a rabid Michael Moore fan, in my view is track record on film and TV is mixed. I thought "Sicko" was a good, eye-opening documentary which was frankly hard to enjoy, but I suppose for an American audience that is the point. I do have family both "blood" and in-laws in the US and I knew from them that the cost of health insurance was both crippling and also the nature of care provided is not always perfect...I think that I can guarantee no country has an ideal system. Yet watching this film made me thank God I live where I do. That scene where a bewildered patient is kicked out of a hospital only to be dumped on to the street was frankly beyond belief to me. Yes there was an inaccuracy about people in the UK who pay for prescription medicine, and there was not a full explanation of the French system which is different from ours, but broadly speaking the NHS was portrayed in financial terms factually. No-one is turned away for treatment, cash is paid out for travel if you are below a certain income and GP's are paid pretty handsomely. I read one UK reviewer complaining bitterly about MRSA. Is that unheard of in the US? NO. Also the 'postcode lottery.' Well my cancer ridden cousin from New York was told by her Insurance provider she was forbidden to see any doctor they did not choose. How would you like that? Ultimately this film was not made for me, it was made for Americans and only you can decide what a horrendous system you have to put up with.