Reviews

Other reviewers keep mentioning Agatha Christie, this really confused me as I thought I was watching the latest episode of Midsomer Murders.

I wondered why it was on bbc.

I joke of course, but in all seriousness this was the latest episode of Midsomer Murders except slightly more ludicrous and with endless political preaching stuffed in.

The latest vehicle for the bbc to stuff its politics down our throats. Nothing to do with the casting, mind. That was decent enough. Some good if not great performances. Good variety.

I still fairly enjoyed it, Midsomer always has been one of my favourites.

Want to watch a really well done drama with a compelling lead villain? I thoroughly recommend this. Coogan's portrayal is excellent.

Want to see Savile's reckoning, as promised by the title? Sorry, product is unavailable. In this life, at least.

Want to see the BBC cherry-picking it's culpability so it can't be accused of avoiding responsibility? Step right in, sir!

Want to try and understand Savile? Watch a documentary on him, by a neutral party.

I'm not sure what the point of this series is, but the BBC freely chose to make it so you can be sure it's self serving. Very entertaining, offers nothing else.

As the Yorkshire Police stated in the aftermath of their dreadfully executed hunt for the Yorkshire Ripper, the biggest mistake they made was looking for a monster instead of an ordinary man.

The suspect the Police homed in on in this investigation is as apparently ordinary as they come, yet investigation reveals a terribly disturbed individual who exhibits behaviour that made my skin crawl, and was as shocking and deeply unsettling as any I can remember, and I am a true crime junkie.

Genuinely nightmarish stuff.

The documentary is excellent, totally gripping throughout.

Well worth watching but a genuine warning to females, think twice - my female partner watched it and woke in the night feeling scared and regretted watching. It's the first time that's happened to her, having watched plenty of similar things.

I cannot over-emphasise how disturbing the suspect is.

Anyone hoping for the next Gomorrah will be disappointed, especially at the start of this Italian gang drama set in Milan. The first 2-3 episodes are average at best, with a confusing mix of characters, none of whom I would describe as compelling.

However I think it massively improves as you get to know the characters. The production values are good, there are plenty of interesting camera things going on (that's the technical term) and the soundtrack is excellent. The leader of the Salvadoran gang gradually becomes more involved and is, in my opinion, the best character.

Yes, the 3 young friends can be annoying and just how many sex scenes do we need? But you kind of root for them.

I would say well worth a watch. It's not Gomorrah, but what is?

For those of us who love true crime documentaries and policework voyeurism then this is definitely a.mini-series worth watching, investigating sex worker trafficking in the UK.

As is often the case, the villains behind it seem like everyday normal people, they don't stand out in the slightest. Nothing revealed in this documentary really shocked me, I found it easy to believe this sort of thing goes on. The main learning point for me was just how much work and expense goes into acquiring the evidence to charge such people.

For those who only occasionally like watching true crime then I think there are more interesting documentaries to choose from, an easy example also coming from Channel 4 in the Crime and Punishment series.

Good effort, worth seeing but not essential viewing.

I used to ignore British drama (I'm British) as I thought it just could not match the incredibly high quality of material coming out of the US. I still think the best of the best of the best comes from across the pond but Time is the latest example of why I was completely wrong.to write off homegrown drama.

Stephen Graham and Sean Bean are both excellent, both totally compelling performances. I found Bean in particular made the teacher such a completely believable character. The other prisoners all seemed plausible.

It was all very depressing but considering the subject matter, what else could it be? I don't think the script was anything special but the acting and production was more than enough to make this brilliant viewing.

3 episodes, 3 hours, far more compelling than any film of that length. A must-see for drama fans from either side of the pond (or anywhere else)

As a massive true crime fan I thought this documentary was decent enough, a 7/10, seen plenty better and plenty worse. What compelled me to write a review was the gist of the other reviews here.

So many people detest the mother of the victim, ok, but so what? The documentary is not about her, it is about finding killers by catfishing them via social media, something that is unique to my experience and which is the core reason for making this documentary. If the mother is.so unlikeable then she's so unlikeable but this is real life, she is not a fictional character, she is how she is and the documentary portrays things as they are. Crucially, the mother is not dramatised or exaggerated and is totally honest about her faults, in a blunt way that is not looking for sympathy.

People talk of having little sympathy for people who actively choose to get involved in gang life, ok fine, but they did choose to do it and the documentary reflects that.

A decent documentary tells the story without bias and without dramatisation, and is well-executed and accurate in detail. These people are what they are, the documentary makers did not make them that way or make their choices for them, the job of the film is to portray reality and it does that.

For true crime fans out there, I would say make your decision on whether to watch this based on whether you think it's an interesting sounding story, which I say it is and I say it was well produced, without being anything incredible. If nasty people put you off then I'm not sure how you came to be a true crime fan!

I think there are a couple of 'rules' for watching this film, to get the most out of it.

Firstly, if you came to it after watching Mangrove then abandon all expectations of a similar film, it is completely and utterly different. Not in a good or bad way, just do not expect anything remotely similar.

Secondly, be in a situation to allow yourself to become absorbed in the film. If you can watch alone, in low lighting, perhaps with a drink or two, and can leave your phone alone for just over an hour ( I know, crazy!) then you will be able to give your whole attention to the film and I think that is the way you will get sucked in and, very possibly, be absolutely blown away.

Lovers Rock is not about script, dialogue, action, character development. It takes a certain place in time, a certain moment in time, and inserts itself right into them and is about just experiencing it as if you were there yourself. It's all about the vibe, not the story. The music is fantastic.

This type of film is most certainly not for everyone, but watch it with your full attention and it might just be the best film you've seen for a long time.

Oh, and anyone who loved it should check out Climax by Gaspar Noe .... also brilliant and similar in lots of ways.

Good acting, nothing special, no compelling characters. Good directing and production, nothing special. Nice locations and scenery. There is a good story in there but it became convoluted and confusing at times. Quite moving at the end. I never guess twists but managed to this time. Charlotte Rampling plays a French woman with a perfect, well-spoken English accent with barely a trace of a French twang. Hmm. The bottom line is, it's a perfectly enjoyable drama, but we live in a world with sooooo much material out there that time is probably better spent on higher-level dramas of this kind. One I thoroughly recommend is the Czech drama Wasteland (Pustina).

Inevitably this 6 episode mini-series of monologues by disabled people is a mixed bag but I would argue that it isn't the quality levels that are mixed, rather they are so different to each other that viewers will always have favourites and least-favourites. Personally I liked The Real Deal and Thunderbox the most, both excellently acted while being completely different to each other. The first episode, Audition, was my least favourite but it suffers only by comparison and is still pretty good. A must-see for Talking Heads fans, and indeed anyone.

My title means what it says : A Tarantino film should blow you away, especially one with incredible reviews. And it IS good, but only good, which is a sore let-down for anyone expecting a knockout blockbuster. I found the opening hour a plod-along, not boring as such but 'meh'. It definitely picked up, there were a handful of compelling scenes, notably Brad Pitt's visit to the cult compound, Leonardo's acting with the little girl, and the violent climactic scene in Leonardo's house. A film of two halves, so to speak.

The unquestionable highlight for me was Leonardo's acting, absolutely superb, something I'm coming to expect every time from him. I completely disagree with the people who rave about Brad Pitt in this. For me, he was basically on auto-pilot, half the time I felt he could have just been being himself. He looked like he was having a great old time throughout, which is hardly the sign of an actor who has thrown himself into method acting the way Leonardo clearly did. It was the performance of an actor who looked way too comfortable with his life and status as a worldwide household name. He put in as much effort as Al Pacino had to, i.e hardly any.

I am 40 and British so the endless Hollywood-of-old references mean virtually nothing to me. This was very much a self-indulging vanity project for Tarantino and whether he has earned the right to do what he wants or whether he has an obligation to his fans to keep providing his 'usual' type of film is up there for debate.

Good film, well worth a watch, but probably just the once.

My headline comment for this would be ... true crime fans only. I am one such person and knew a bit about this case and so was interested enough to watch. One thing to make clear is that this is not an in-depth coverage of the case from start to finish, it comes in at a point in the relatively recent past when a lead appears and it follows the pursuing of that lead. It starts off slowly but gathers pace and the alleged perpetrator involved is a disturbingly compelling character who appears throughout. Without knowing the outcome, it becomes gripping. If you happen to know up to date details of the case then I suppose it's like knowing the ending to a film. Nonetheless, the commitment of the father to discover the truth about his daughter, having long established she must be dead, is both painful and admirable to watch. Watching a man going through hell, being given hope but always with the possibility that hope evaporates to nothing, is at times excruciating. I'm so sorry for him. All good-natured true crime fans will be entertained at this, whilst thanking God they are only spectators.

This documentary is produced for the short-attention-span generation. As a UK resident I don't know how typical it is of American TV but I found the pace way too quick. No chance any UK equivalent would be like this. The camera is never on an individual for more than 10 seconds (so it seemed) before it's shooting off to a graphic and then another and then back to the next individual for a quick line before its recap time. I really do not like this style. That said, I did get used to it (without liking it any better) and the case itself is very interesting. I am sceptical when it comes to the issue of documentaries being unbiased but I think this one is pretty fair in its coverage. Although it clearly sways in one direction, I think that this was driven by the realities of the case and it certainly offered a fair amount of the opposite viewpoint. Ultimately I think this is for true crime fans only, and they will appreciate it. 7/10.

There are so many true-crime series around. for anyone short of time it's tough picking which ones to go with. To any fan reading this, I thoroughly recommend this mini-series. Definitely one of the best I've seen and I've seen a lot. I found it gripping from start to finish. Of the 3 cases featured, the first is the stabbing of a lone male in a flat in Southend. Although suspects are quickly identified, it takes time tracking them all down. Which ones, if any, are guilty of murder? The second case covers only half an episode but is truly shocking in both the simplicity and outcome of the crime. I am not one to exclaim out loud at the TV but on a good couple of occasions I blurted out What?!!!! Nooooo! The third case is another stabbing, this time of a homeless man in Colchester, found dead in a side street. It takes a lot longer to ID a suspect in this case. Another case that had me amazed at the outcome. All angles of an investigation are covered, I personally was not surprised at the amount of tedious legwork and CCTV watching that had to be done, perhaps some people will be. It certainly isn't glamorous like in the movies. I think the biggest thing I took from this is how 'real' it made murder seem. When it isn't on TV or in the papers, when you are seeing the real individuals involved without sad music in the background and endless dramatic narration etc it brings home how 'ordinary' a murder can be, in terms of locations, people involved etc. Even the accused seemed like otherwise normal everyday people, not dark shadowy villains. In this respect, it's all the more frightening. In these sad and scary times, true-crime fans have more time on their hands than they would like in which to catch up with their playlist. I suggest starting here.

There is no doubt the subject matter of the French fostering and adoption system is an important topic and one which I guess most people know little or nothing about, and, assuming the system in my home country of England is not too dissimilar, it was very educational for me. Emotion inevitably comes into it as we see an unwanted baby boy pass from his birth, through the system, to his eventual new home. The film is slow paced, which was not remotely a problem for me but may be for some. The acting,and production are all very good.

My main problem with the film was it just seemed too bland. Whilst I appreciate the characters were meant to be realistic, we are nonetheless watching a drama not a documentary and so artistic licence is allowed. When such licence was employed it came across as totally contrived, almost for the sake of it. The script was also just a bit too dry. Whilst life is the primary subject of the film, there was a real lack of sparkle to it, a lack of life.

I found it enjoyable, and in some ways an important film to see from an educational perspective, but feel in the hands of superior film makers it could have been so much better (the Dardenne brothers immediately come to mind).

With all the reality TV there is around these days, if there are any documentaries on the same subject then I would suggest watching them instead of this.

I watch a lot of true crime stuff and am a big fan of Making a Murderer and The Staircase, amongst others, and I can say this absolutely excellent documentary surpasses both. I am on the fence when it comes to capital punishment as I see strong arguments on both sides ..... Life and Death Row threw me relentlessly from one side of the debate to the other, one minute I was thinking 'Yep'. just a few minutes later and I'm thinking 'Nope'. It really does thoroughly cover all bases, looking at both sides of every convict, delving deeply into the families of both the victim(s) and the prisoner. There is a lot of really, really raw emotion on display, Whilst sympathy inevitably goes to the families of the victims, did I ever really imagine the impact on the convicted's family? Watching a relative choking with grief whilst holding a photo of their sibling at the time that sibling was being executed, just beyond the boundaries of the execution chamber property, was gobsmackingly powerful. We hear the opinions of so many people, including those not involved personally. We hear from the decision-makers, the press, the Police. I cannot think of an angle that wasn't covered. The inmate who accepts guilt and prays for clemency, the inmate who accepts guilt and wants to die, the inmate who insists he's innocent. All are here. Each story covered felt to me like a mini courtroom drama of the highest order .... is he/she going to be executed? As a UK resident I was unfamiliar with any of the cases included so I didn't know what happened in the end. I was basically just glued to the screen, one of those documentaries where you tell yourself at bedtime 'just 10 more minutes', then ' I may as well finish the episode'' then pretending to be caught out by the next episode starting in 10 seconds ....and so on. For any student of the capital punishment debate this is beyond-essential viewing. For any true crime fan, stop reading this and get it on your tv screen right now. Films, documentaries, TV shows, they all polarise opinion in the main but this is one of those where I find it impossible to believe anyone who watched it could be very entertained at worst and mesmerized at best. I didn't give it an 10 as there were a few times the foot was taken off the gas but that's a back-handed compliment.

I recently decided to try a few Indian films, something I had not yet done despite being a massive fan of world cinema. Where better to start than the films that are in the IMDb top 250? First came Like Stars on Earth ... absolutely fantastic. Then 3 Idiots ... very very good. Then A Wednesday ... oh dear. I had such high expectations and was sorely disappointed. It's not that this is a bad film (the 1 or 2/10 reviews are ridiculous). it's just that it is a 'nothing' film. The acting is totally forgettable, with not a single compelling character. The cop who is supposed to be the 'bad cop' does nothing worse than partake in some dreadfully executed slapping scenes, the police chief is perfunctory bordering on dull and even the 'common man' baddie is unconvincing. The attempts at humour are cringe-worthy. The whole film has an air of all-been-done-before. If it was Holly not Bollywood this film would sink without a trace, being enjoyed by people when it comes out and then swiftly forgotten as it joins the endless heap of films with the same construct. Yet it sits in the top 250! There is not one single thing about this film that is anything but ordinary at best.Of course it is a totally different film to 3 Idiots or Like Stars on Earth but those films had magical qualities and were so unique only Indian cinema could have produced them. This film could have been done anywhere, Perhaps it is a mere aberration that it appears in the top 250 but suddenly I can no longer safely rely on such a film being at least high quality whether I enjoyed it or not. It really is mind-blowing that so many people think this is an incredible film. I give it a generous six.

I have recently seen my first 2 Werner Herzog documentaries, Into the Abyss and Grizzly Man and I loved both of them and so came to Happy People with high hopes. It was a bit of a let-down.

Firstly, most people seem to give Herzog all the credit here yet he did not go out to Siberia to film any of his 'own' documentary. Whilst he shares directorial credit, Dmitry Vasyukov did all the beautiful camera-work and put in the hard days living in those conditions, so he must get the lion's share of the plaudits.

Secondly, the film purports to be aboutthe lives of the villagers yet the vast majority of the film concerns one trapper. The film follows him and his dogs around as he goes about his life hunting animals in the wild. We learn next to nothing about the lives of the women or children in the village, and there are only sporadic moments featuring other menfolk. It felt as if the film was about this one hunter and the rest of the people in it were just context for his life.

Thirdly, where are the 'happy people' the title refers to? I didn't see any particularly happy people in the film. I think the principle behind the film was to give the impression that people who lead simpler, remote lives are happier than the rest of us, but i saw no evidence of this whatsoever. The men who were shown collecting logs, who referred to their universal alcohol problems, looked particularly UNhappy. These people lead very difficult lives in extreme conditions. I'm not saying they were going around looking miserable, but they certainly weren't jumping for joy at their wonderful lives. It seems a bizarre title for the film.

Finally, I like to learn from documentaries but I also like to be entertained and I found this film just a bit boring. This is not to say there are no good points ... there are scores of beautiful nature shots and it is an interesting look into a completely different way of life. That was not enough for me to make it a recommendation.

I find some of the reviews of this film slightly ridiculous. One starts off by saying how they 'loathe found footage films', well why did you watch this then?! Several other reviews complain about the shaky camera work ... erm, it's a fake documentary filmed by people walking around with a hand-held camera, mostly through difficult terrain, wouldn't it be slightly bizarre if the camera-work was perfect?!! Take found footage films for what they are, if you don't like them then don't watch them and then complain about them! I love found footage films, a lot of them are dreadful but this is not one of them. I thought the acting was decent by found footage standards (in other words perfectly OK for this type of film)and at least it wasn't filmed in an abandoned lunatic asylum for a change. The tension is really built up well in this film, there is a lot of weird stuff going on which creeps you out (no in-your-face monsters etc) and you never really know what is stalking the documentary makers. There are weak points, such as the blatant Blair-witch rip off scene (though no doubt the director would claim it's a tribute) and some absurd dialogue bearing in mind the situation the crew are in. Overall though it is a decent effort and if it only cost 600 bucks then hats off to the producers etc. If you like found footage films, watch it. If you don't, don't watch it!

The first rule of reviewing 'found footage' horror films is to take them for what they are. So, I review this in the context of the sub-genre only and not in the wider context of film generally.

The found footage genre is massively over-saturated with poor quality films. When done right, these films are fantastically scary (Blair Witch etc). I have watched over 30 of these films and, bearing in mind this film is only a year old, my only reaction is 'why was this film even made?'. It offers absolutely nothing new whatsoever, and trots out the same clichés as most other of these films (scary abandoned property, investigated at night, shaky camera work, annoying characters etc etc). Although it is no worse than many other found footage films, those other films came first and so it is up to newer films to expand on and develop the genre - this film totally fails to do that.

The one positive for me was that I thought the acting was a lot better than usual. I'm not talking about great acting as such, just appropriate acting for this type of film.

Yet another poor addition to the pool, for die-hard found footage fans only, and even those people will wonder why they bothered watching.

The consensus in the user reviews here seems to be that this sequel is better than the first film. I think this depends entirely on what kind of horror film you like watching. All segments presented here are in the 'found footage' style, but beyond that there are numerous formats for scaring people that can be used - monsters, ghosts, aliens, zombies etc etc.

This sequel has 4 segments besides the framework story (which adds nothing to this film). The first segment features ghosts, and while this is one of my preferred types of horror film, I didn't find this segment scary whatsoever. It was a let-down. The second segment is zombies, and as I can't stand zombie films, I didn;t like it, although I do think it was very nicely put together and zombie fans will enjoy it, although I doubt very much they will be scared by it. The third segment is about a creepy cult, this was by far the best segment and slowly built up the weirdness and tension very well. Unfortunately it descended into an over-the-top bloodbath which spoilt it somewhat. The fourth segment is aliens, another type of horror film I don't enjoy, and again it was a bit ridiculous, far too much shaky camera work. It did feature some humour though, which is not what I wanted from this film but nonetheless was enjoyable.

I like the less-is-more type of horror film, where the evil is subtle, unseen and a menacing force in the background, or where there are weird unexplained events going on that are actually plausible. I find that far scarier than an obvious in-your-face evil followed by bloodbaths and gore. If you are of the same taste than I recommend watching the first VHS and not this sequel. Conversely, if you like zombies, aliens, blood and endless screaming, then this is the film for you.