Reviews

The excellent Douglas Henshaw heads the cast as SIO detective John Tolin, investigating the scene of a dramatic pile-up, involving several vehicles on a major British highway.

There are a few suspicious and dark elements about one or two of the crash victims, that convinces John Tolin that further investigation into their lives is necessary, as details about them start to unravel. There's even a murder committed at the crash scene, unknowingly to the police, who never manage to stumble on to it, and even we don't learn about that particular aspect until the last episode.

Althogh this was televised about 14 years ago, it hasn't dated one bit, although some viewers might find this series a bit of a slow burner. But the natural pacing, convincing acting and the mystery surrounding one or two of the victims will leave you curious to find out more. There's also a little twist at the end as to what ultimately caused the collision in the first place.

Highly recommended.

I'm beginning to hate everything Richard Curtis does, having just watched Love Actually for the first time, nearly 20 years after its release. It features a few of the usual Richard Curtis suspects, namely, Hugh Grant, Emma Thompson and Rowan Atkinson, as well as some up-and-coming names at the time, like Keira Knightley and comedy actor, Martin Freeman (fresh from his role in the Brit tv com, The Office).

Richard Curtis generally makes comedy films about white British upper middle-class life, much of it featuring highly compromising situations, and Love Actually is no exception here. He's been much criticised for casting only white actors in his films, so guess what? He's now box ticking, so we have the introduction of middle-class black actors into his films. I guess that would have to have happened sometime, except Curtis makes it so obvious.

This film is about as believable as Donald Duck, or should I say Donald Trump. There's usually plenty of ripe language in RC's films, just to show that Mr. Curtis is familiar with profanity, and his world of white, uper middle-class characters are also familiar with swear words. There's even porn-movie scenes included, featuring 2 characters who have a constant chit-chat about everyday life concerns, while being filmed as they're pretending to fornicate, because that's hilarious, isn't it? That aside, most of the compromising scenes are nothing new, but are contrived very much like the old Carry On films given a more modern touch. But when you have the idea of a 10 year old schoolboy having a crush on a female classmate, and then being encouraged by his stepfather, is that really supposed to be amusing.

You could say that RC makes modern Carry On films, which also feature bawdy language and awkward situations, but there are some major differences. For a start there's no focus on upper middle-class white characters, and there's a big use of double-entendres in Carry On films. Also it's obvious that the cast in these films are camping it up to such a degree that makes these films funny. The cast are laughing at themselves as well as us laughing at them. But in RC films the behaviour of the characters and conversations almost make you think the scenes could be realistic, especially to American audiences for whom I suspect this film is largely aimed at. Most Americans, unless they have lived in Britain have little idea what English behaviour is like. It ain't anything like the vision of what Richard Curtis films would like you to believe. Although many describe this film as a Christmas rom-com, if that is the case then this has to be one of the cheesiest, most misguided exercises in how middle-class Brits are portrayed. However, if this film was intended as a satire, poking fun at Americans, or any other nation that seriously believe that's the way Brits generally behave, then it has succeeded. But I don't think that was Richard Curtis's motive at all.

The film is mildly entertaining, but because of the absurd situations most of the characters find themselves in, together with the cheesy nature of the whole thing, it's highly annoying as well.

I watched The Conjuring for the first time a few days ago. I was expecting a lot having read certain reliable reviewers, whose favourite genre is horror movies. But I'm afraid even though the special effects and acting were decent enough, ultimately it was just another 'haunted house' type movie.

It was well done, but unless you are new to this genre, if you've seen The Exorcist or Amitiville Horror.films, then you've really seen it all before.

Also watched the Blair Witch Project a few days earlier, but that genuinely scared the bejeezus out of me. You certainly weren't given the impression there that you were watching actors going through the motions, unlike The Conjuring.

Another Pacino movie where the star's ego is allowed to run riot. But even if it hadn't, this is just a very contrived plot, if a mildly entertaining one. Nothing in this story is really believable, and the same for the 2 detective characters who are more cartoon cut-outs than attempts to portray real people. Pacino as Det. Frank Keller is small, and his partner Sherman is huge and fat and that's not a coincidence. This movie is more comedy cops than a detective story, and succeeds more on that level. But the sordid nature of the murders confuses as to whether to take this film seriously or not.

Pacino has never been much of an actor, and his best work was in the '70s when he did more serious roles. There were also a couple of movies in the '90s where he stepped up his game, notably Heat and Insomnia, but that was more down to the directing, storyline and his co-actors, rather than any remarkable improvement in Pacino's acting. He was passable enough in those two.

Sea Of Love will probably keep you entertained (its main purpose), and if you're a Pacino fan you'll probably like this one. But to me it is another rather silly detective yarn that's very forgettable once you've seen it, and one where I find Pacino more annoying than usual.

The first ep is confusing, as you need to get used to the backward storytelling, as well as the introduction of a lot of new characters. But this turned out to be a totally brilliant series. Some have dissed this series after only 1 ep (I ask you) which is just plain nuts. A few of the reviews just appear to be either seriously dumb, lazy or both. You have to make the effort with this and focus, but it's worth it as the pay-off is dramatic as well as tragic.

The acting of the 2 leads, Richard Dormer and Jodi Balfour is amazing as well as the chemistry between their 2 characters, DCI Gabriel Markham and DI Elaine Shepherd. They are investigating a brutal serial killer who likes to dowse his victims in acid. With each backward jump in time, you'd think there would be less known in the investigation, but actually as viewers we see and learn more. By the end of the 5th episode it's clear who the killer is, then in the finale we jump forward to where the 1st ep left off and move forward as normal, and what a finale! For me this was the best UK TV drama of the year. Nothing else even comes close.

First of all, in order to fully appreciate Spider it requires more than a single viewing - at least 2 are necessary. Secondly,if you grew up in England, especially London, that would have helped, as many of the idioms spoken in this film, eg 'wicking' (as used by Yvonne Wilkinson - meaning 'annoying') were very much around in 1950s London. There are some other parochial phrases used which would be lost on most Americans. Curiously, looking at the subtitles for Spider a lot of the phrases have been wrongly interpreted, (probably compiled by Americans).

Anyway, the first time I saw this, I didn't really get it either. At the same time I felt I hadn't given this film a proper chance, and when I did decide to revisit it I realized what a subtle, if strange and depressing movie it was. I've watched this several times since and on each occasion it became more fascinating, gradually dawning on me how much I'd missed in some of the more suggestive and important scenes. Eg, how many viewing this for the first time recognized that the actress playing Yvonne Wilkinson flashing her breast at young Spider, was not Miranda Richardson, who played Yvonne in all the subsequent scenes. There was a good reason for that of course. Also I realized why the imposing gasometer structure seen by Spider from his bedroom window seemed to terrify him. There are plenty of other examples. Once you notice what you missed first time around and more, you can appreciate this film so much better.

But most viewers do not have the time or patience these days to allow a 'slow' film like Spider to develop, so naturally Spider will never see the light of day again for those with a short attention span. That's their loss though. You can make films about mental illness in a more entertaining way - eg. A Beautiful Mind. But in the end Spider digs that much deeper. Full credit to David Cronenberg for having the balls to make such an unconventional film, yet brilliant study of the schizophrenic mind. And needless to say Ralph Fiennes performance as the confused, mumbling Spider is extraordinary.