Reviews

Once again, there's dastardly government agencies stopping at nothing to prevent public knowledge of some momentous events. In this case, the discovery of a new underwater species that could threaten the planet's ecology. Although the creature is no E.T. he does seem to befriend one youngster, who protects it at all costs, not realising it is but an infant of the species and is going to get a lot bigger – and badder This 2005 series had a lot going for it. It is family drama, sci-fi, thriller with more than a few comedic moments. The characters are believable, well acted and well photographed. The show holds the attention. Of course, as with any sci-fi show, suspension of disbelief has to be achieved. And I think it is here. Alas, the series crashed after season one, so we never get a resolution. Infuriating.. There is a general comment I feel worth making here. Many TV networks and/or film distribution companies cancel, quite arbitrarily, seemingly excellent TV series – particularly intelligent sci-fi ones. Now there may be some very good reasons for this, although the audiences are treated with utmost disdain and rarely told the reasons. This in itself is annoying. What really gets my goat is that, having cancelled the series, they then issue the thing as far as it's got, on DVD, in an obvious attempt to milk the cash cow as far as possible. For previous viewers of the series that's OK, they know what they're in for but … many of these unfinished series end on a cliffhanger. Two that come to mind immediately are "Surface", and "Odyssey 5". If you've heard good things about the series and not seen it you go and buy the blasted DVD and end up with an unresolved plot issue – it makes me very angry!! I enjoyed "Surface" immensely and didn't realise the poor characters would end up in a situation that looked totally untenable – and we'll never know what happened next. I believe that there should be a prominent notice on all such DVD issues, to the effect that the story is unfinished. Nowadays I check on TV series purchases (IMDB is an obvious excellent starting point) to find out whether a 'complete' series is really complete or not. Buyer beware.

Great Britain in the not too distant future. From the beginning of the film we are led to believe that the USA has collapsed, due to a plague and ensuing chaos and that the UK has become a totalitarian, repressive state. A combination of Hitlers's Third Reich and George Orwell's 1984. Terrifyingly realistic. (The character played implacably by John Hurt is the 'Chancellor', Adam Sutler – the references are obvious.) The story starts with a young woman being waylaid on the street at night, defying the curfew in place, and is rescued by a masked man, calling himself 'V'. She subsequently has an opportunity to repay the debt by helping him, and the story progresses from there. 'V' is a man with a single-minded mission – to destroy the machinery of the state and allow democracy to grab a chance. In a way, the tale, although well told and well acted, is only a useful metaphor for the real story – a warning of just how close we could be to the events depicted. Increasing control of people's lives, under the excuse of anti-terrorism and protection of the state, has led to a constant fear of being who you really are, if that means something other than what the State requires 'You wear a mask for so long, you forget who you were beneath it.' is a comment by the character played by Stephen Fry. Hugo Weaving is superb. His performance (in a Guy Fawkes mask the whole film) is all the more chilling for being understated and calm, (except when he's rescuing Natalie Portman or flashing knives around!) Despite not being able to see his face, his voice and body posture give us his character. Natalie Portman convinces with a stunning performance as a young woman who has been intimidated by the state for most of her life. The cinematography is also praiseworthy. Unlike some dark and disturbing films, which are shot in dark and disturbing colours (or near pitch black!) this is rendered in natural, if muted, tones and daylight is daylight and bright and stark corridors of hospitals, etc. are actually bright. This helps to make the scenes believable, real, adding to the chill. The ending is spectacular. To say more would spoil it for you. This is a splendid piece of work, and I believe, a very important film. It has rightly had a scattering of awards and nominations but Hollywood in its all-too-frequent parochial ignorance has thus far not seen fit to dish out an Oscar or two, whilst lavishing praise on a handful of over-hyped trash in recent years. If you haven't yet seen it – see it. It's the best movie I've seen in quite a while. And it makes you think.

Based on the 1998 Los Angeles production, this show ran for over 100 performances on Broadway.

Primarily a love-fest for Sondheim fans, this review was a big hit. From the authoritative baritone of George Hearn to the camp antics of Bronson Pinchot it's great fun.

There are many somewhat unusual numbers included amongst the justly famous ones. The opening number (Invocations and Instructions to the audience) comes from The Frogs, four of the five songs in the film 'Dick Tracy' are included, and a couple of numbers cut from 'A Little Night Music' are also present. Sondheim addicts will doubtless get great enjoyment from identifying what comes from where, so I won't go on. (It took me a while to get them all - my DVD does not have a listing!)

Carol Burnett is hilarious in 'Getting Married Today' and dramatically convincing in 'The Ladies who Lunch'. John Barrowman's stunning looks and equally stunning voice is put to good use in such numbers as 'Bang' – a duet with the glorious Ruthie Henshall – and 'Marry Me a Little'. Bronson Pinchot is a narrative link between scenes, and has his own moment of glory in 'Buddy's Blues', one of those tongue twisting numbers Sondheim revels in, executed with great panache.

The binding force in all this is, of course, George Hearn. Whether in solos, duets or just on stage listening (for example to Carol Burnett in 'Could I Leave You?' ) his presence is commanding and supportive.

There is not one part of this show that is less than totally enjoyable. All the extremely talented artists are having fun, and so are the audience. Join in.

Company, for many people, is the show that introduced them to the art of Stephen Sondheim. I saw the original London production, with Larry Kert and Elaine Stritch, in 1972.

Not an easy piece to produce, it has a plot, but no story. Its origins in a series of unproduced one act play-lets by George Furth were developed by author and composer to provide an unexpected but brilliant commentary on relationships. It is very much a product of the time in which it was written.

One of the difficulties is that the central character Bobby – the only one of his group of friends who isn't married or in a stable relationship – is essentially passive, unsure and can easily be viewed as a sort of cypher, with the rest of the cast doing all the action. A successful production will overcome this. The Donmar Warehouse production does this triumphantly. As Sondheim himself remarked, this production clearly places the other characters where they belong - in Bobby's mind. Everything is in his head. His fear of commitment is gradually resolved, through a series of tableaux, culminating in his desire for the very thing that has previously frightened him.

Adrian Lester is excellent as Bobby. The fragility of his nature is shown well in his voice. I've always felt that Larry Kert, for example, was in many ways better than the originator on Broadway – Dean Jones, who had the better voice. Similarly, the excellent John Barrowman, who was in the Washington 2002 revival and has a stunning voice, came across as a little too confident and positive a character.

Sheila Gish is Joanne. Perhaps even more abrasive than the original (Elaine Stritch) she holds the attention and the stage. 'The Ladies who lunch' is a number demanding a tour de force performance if it is to work, and here receives just that.

The other cast members give similarly sterling performances. The dialogue is sharp and clean and the words to the all-important musical numbers come across clearly. The diminutive stage size at the Donmar works in this piece's favour. The audience is close enough to the performers to feel a part of the action. The performance I attended showed even more clearly than this TV broadcast that everyone on stage was enjoying themselves, as was the audience. The cut number from the original production – 'Marry Me a Little' – is here restored to its place at the end of Act 1. All in all, a most satisfying performance of a Sondheim classic. If you can get a copy of this, grab it with both hands.

June 1998 at The Lyceum Theatre, London. Somehow, over 200 actors and dancers and singers all crammed into this theatre for an evening of unforgettable entertainment. (In fact, 2 performances were given – 7 and 8 June, the second one being the Royal gala charity that was filmed.) Over nearly three hours we are guided through highlights of 26 shows produced by one man over 30 years or so. Cameron Mackintosh. Many of the original casts reprise their roles, and many more stars are on hand to add to the glitter. There are some fairly rare appearances, too. Millicent Martin, David Kernan and Julie Mackenzie do a bit from 'Side by Side by Sondheim' and Tom Lehrer sings a song of his that was used in 'TomFoolery.' Dame Judi Dench sings an unforgettable 'Send in the Clowns' and Andrew Lloyd Webber and Stephen Sondheim do a duet (!) And …. one could go on all night! The list of shows and cast would do justice to a dictionary of musical theatre. It is a splendid tribute to the indefatigable talent of 'Mr. Producer' Mackintosh. I think there are two items cut from the DVD. The opening medley number of Act 2 and one of the Tom Lehrer numbers. But no matter, this is without doubt a stunning achievement by all concerned.

'The best bits' will clearly depend on your own likes and dislikes. For me, the Sondheim numbers were the highlight. The man's a genius. It should be mentioned that nearly all the numbers are fully staged and costumed. (The logistics of this are mind-numbing!) They are not just a gaggle of stars in evening dress. The big 'production numbers' are spectacular – especially 'Cats' and the final piece from 'Les Miserables'. If you have any love or interest at all in musical theatre, this DVD is a 'must'. There is no on-screen info about the numbers coming up or the artists performing them. I feel this is something that could easily have been remedied. However, a listing can be found in the archive section of Albermarle of London website. (www.albermarle-london.com)

The new series of Doctor Who is a resounding triumph. Previous incarnations of this programme go back 45 years, so the pedigree is well established, and it has always had a loyal fan base, despite serious failings of script on occasion (especially in the later years) and lack of budget for adequate sets, costumes, etc. But this series (I've seen seasons 1 – 3) is spectacularly better. It scores in several major areas. First – the scripts are very well written, and each episode is ingeniously different. Very gripping and well-crafted stories, plenty of new villains and monsters, some good cliff-hangers, and several well-remembered past entities (Daleks and Cybermen pop up more than once). Second – the sets, costumes and SFX are of course much more realistic. Computer Graphics seem to have been used to great effect, and these are time-consuming and expensive. Obviously a larger budget was made available than previously and the latest technology seems to have been put to good use in the hands of dedicated 'techies'! There is also much more location filming. Third – the essential, rather passive, female 'assistant' to the Doctor is now no longer an assistant. Rather, she is an integral part of the stories, a companion who has her own opinions, motivations and style, and is very much part of the adventures, (as is her mother and her boyfriend in the first two seasons!) Of course the Doctor changes,and the companion likewise,from time to time (if you'll pardon the pun!) but the formula remains and works. However the relationship between the Doctor and his companion is explored more deeply than before. Also there are some special guest appearances - watch out for Derek Jacobi in season 3, for example. It does retain many of the traditional 'Doctor Who' values. Plenty of deaths but no blood and gore. Plenty of action and fighting, but no heavy swearing. Some fairly scary moments, but nothing you would want to shield the kids from, (unless you're really paranoid!) – and kids love being frightened anyway . It is a measure of its success that the main characters are taken to your heart such that you really care what happens to them. Towards the end of the second season the angst level does get higher, and some might argue that it gets a little too 'serious'. There are some very sad moments, but by and large, it's just great fun – for children from 10 to a 110. There's some fine acting by all involved, even the music is first rate, (the new orchestration of the time-honoured, never-to-be changed, main theme tune is stunning) and the enterprise deserves every accolade you might throw at it. Lots more – please!

This was a wonderful realisation of a gem. I first saw it in London with Jean Simmons and Hermoine Gingold and was suitably impressed. This version was a PBS telecast of a performance at The Lincoln Center (November 7, 1990.) For some reason it has never been commercially available, but inevitably copies have found their way around. Sally Ann Howes is just perfectly cast as Desiree and as her mother, Mme. Arnfeldt, the great mezzo Regina Resnick makes an equally indelible impression. The rest of the cast do not disappoint, and the production (a NYCO job) is great. All in all, Ingmar Bergman's tale is brought vividly to life and Stephen Sondheim's genius shines brightly, as it should. A complete opposite from the altogether miserable effort filmed a few years earlier. With Len Cariou, Hermione Gingold (both recreating their stage roles) and Elizabeth Taylor leading the cast there, one might have expected a great deal more – but don't bother. Cariou and Diana Rigg are very good, but Miss Taylor is just not right. Try to get a copy of this one. Google it, borrow it, mortgage your house for it – but get it!

From the very beginning of this film you are drawn inexorably into a world of shadows, of hate, of revenge and injustice. The photography is appropriately dark and menacing (Gotham City is, by comparison, positively cheery!) The two principal characters are taken by Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter. Both are excellent, although arguably a little too young for their roles. Alan Rickman, glorious to watch as ever, is the evil Judge Turpin. Perhaps the real surprise for many is that they all sing – well, too! Depp plays the title role of a brooding, introverted and embittered man who, being cheated initially of the revenge he seeks on one man (Turpin) is more than willing to hit out at the entire world, with the connivance of Mrs. Lovett (Bonham Carter). Depp accentuates the quiet introvert bit so his outbursts of rage are all the more effective, when they come. The rest of the cast are admirable. 14 year old Ed Sanders takes the role of Toby. Perhaps younger than usually cast in this role (he has three important numbers to sing, including the hit 'Not while I'm around') - he's just perfect for the part. Timothy Spall once more plays a grimy, unpleasant character (The Beadle is very unpleasant!) to great effect. Sacha Baron Cohen, perhaps best known for his 'Borat' character, is fine as the fake Italian hairdresser, who tries to blackmail Todd, thereby becoming the first to receive 'a very close shave'! Whilst in no way displacing the two televised versions (on DVD) of the stage musical (one from 1982 with Angela Lansbury and George Hearn, the other a concert performance in 2001, with Patti Lupone and George Hearn) this is a magnificent movie. Sondheim's score is somewhat abbreviated (the opening chorus is omitted altogether) and the blood and gore is perhaps a little too generously applied, but Director Tim Burton is clearly in his element here. This is not a 'musical' in the generally accepted sense – it is a 'music drama' or musical thriller – and very thrilling it is, too. I've seen it twice – and I shall look forward to seeing it again – a fine piece of work.

Televised in 1982, from a Los Angeles production, this is probably the finest example of a filmed stage musical you are likely to encounter. Issued on DVD in 2004 in a remastered digital transfer, it is quite stunning. Hearn and Lansbury give the performances of their lives and the rest of the cast are quite obviously caught up in the electricity generated. Of course it is Sondheim's music and lyrics that make this possible. If anyone doubts that he is one of the "greats" of the American Musical form listen to this. The sets are stark, as befits the plot, and clever in allowing the swift scene changes required and the cameras catch the action without obliterating the fact that this is a stage production. A central, move-able and revolving platform is Mrs. Lovett's pie shop, with the barber's shop upstairs. Around it are various gantries and moving stairs to allow the rest of the action to take place. The brutal tale of injustice leading to revenge, murder and mayhem is liberally spiced with dark humour and comic moments. Sondheim does for barber shops what Hitchcock did for showers ! An important work in American musical theatre is here given an electrifying performance.

The story of the young Patrick Dennis, arriving in New York in 1928 to live with his determinedly unconventional Aunt Mame, having been recently orphaned, was turned into a musical, following a successful Broadway play and subsequent film – both with Rosalind Russell. The musical title role was turned down by Mary Martin and, after many others were considered, went to Angela Lansbury, who had fought long and hard to get the part. She triumphed (Mame ran for over 1,500 performances, with Celeste Holm, among others, taking over the part when Lansbury went on a national tour) and won a Tony award, (as did the glorious Bea Arthur in a supporting role – Vera Charles - an actress friend of Mame) So, to the film …. 8 years after the Broadway hit the movie version opened. Why Warner Bros. insisted on using Lucille Ball for the title part is quite beyond me (and a lot of other people!) She's a great comedienne, and a household name, but has two major drawbacks. She was about ten years too old for the part and she can't sing. The film makers tried to get round the first objection by shooting closeups with a soft focus lens – rather obviously - which ruins the object of the exercise, but the second objection is very much in evidence. With established film stars such as Lansbury, Holm and Ginger Rogers (who took the part in the London production) around, their decision is baffling. It is, however, a wonderful romp, with the score and lyrics of Jerry Herman just about guaranteed to set the feet tapping. Bea Arthur reprises her Broadway success as the acid-tongued actress, although one senses her slight unease at the on-screen proceedings. Jane Connell, too, repeats her Broadway role as Agnes Gooch with aplomb. But with so many of the musical numbers relying on the title role player it just doesn't take off as it should. I cannot think of a movie, offhand, that has produced such a wide range of reactions – from downright despair to semi-adoration. My own reaction is somewhere in the middle. It's OK, but could have been so much better. I guess the only solution is to see it and make up your own mind. Mame sings in the first act " the fizz doesn't fizz too long …" , well here the champagne remains resolutely in the bottle for much of the time, although it's there on the table, opened and ready. It may be that whoever owned the film rights to this show insisted on Miss Ball but, notwithstanding this, those responsible at Warner's should be thoroughly castigated – if only because the film would have made a lot more money if commonsense had prevailed.

Of the large output of movies that concern themselves with accounts of the Nazi era and its aftermath, there are perhaps only a handful that can be called 'great'. This is certainly one of them. This film is about the (fictional) tribunal of 4 of the German judges, who 'legalised' the atrocities enshrined in the so-called 'Nuremberg Laws' and were swayed by political rather than legal considerations when making their judgements. By 1948, there was increasing political pressure for the trials to cease. Germany was becoming regarded as a bastion against the threat of communism from the East. As one character in this film remarks : 'You do not get help from the German people if you constantly keep putting their leaders on trial.' Spencer Tracey plays the principal judge, who is determined that the tribunal shall go ahead, and makes every effort to understand how such terrible events could occur in a 'civilised' country. As the trial progresses we are shown, not just from witnesses brought in and the courtroom drama itself, (and very dramatic it is), a country that permitted the most horrendous crimes to be committed in its name, now shamed and defeated, trying to regain a semblance of normality and self-respect. All seven principals (The cast list reads like a Hollywood who's who) give stunning performances and the direction by Stanley Kramer makes for an unforgettable experience.

The short story by Daphne du Maurier is transposed from South West England to America for this Hitchcock outing. It contains some really effective and scary moments and is beautifully photographed. It also has some typical Hitchcock humour. Without giving the game away for those yet to view this film, it concerns a strange phenomenon - all the birds start to gather together for a concerted attack on mankind. This attack is viewed from the perspective of the inhabitants of a small seaside community and an outsider - played by Tippi Hedren. The very ambiguous ending is as per the original tale, and all the more chilling for it. When short stories are expanded to full length films the original's impact is frequently lost. Not so here, I think. One does not look at gulls and starlings in quite the same way, having seen this film!

Cedric Hardwicke opens the proceedings with all the dramatic impact of someone reading the London Telephone Directory. It does not bode too well for what is to follow. Gene Barry does his best with a somewhat vague and disjointed script but does not appear to be involved in the proceedings to any great extent; and Ann Robinson screams very nicely. The special effects are, for its time, quite clever, although not a patch on 'Forbidden Planet', made just a few years later. The real trouble lies in the fact that there is no real story as such. At least the recent effort with Tom Cruise had a tale to tell - and obviously far more impactful effects - not just machines bashing up the earthlings! For a better example of cinematic sci-fi of the 1950s have a look at 'The Day The Earth Stood Still' or 'Forbidden Planet'. These two, and some others, are rightly 'classics'. This one is just fairly good fun.

One of my all time favourite movies. A 'classic' in more ways than one. All the performances - especially Charles Laughton and Marlene Dietrich - are convincing and well shaped. Billy Wilder directs with his usual wit and acuity. Definitely the best of Agatha Christie's film adaptations. A man accused of murder is defended by a brilliant but ill barrister (played by Charles Laughton) - he's just recovered from a heart attack. His nurse (Elsa Lanchester - Laughton's real life wife) tries to prevent him from taking on the case, but to no avail. The accused (Tyrone Power, in his last film) seems friendly, sincere and caught in a web not of his doing. But all is not as it seems. The twists and turns in this film keep you guessing and the biggest twist is right at the end. I think this is one of Dietrich's best parts. Her role as the defendant's wife is central to the plot - just how, you will have to see for yourself, assuming you haven't already seen it. A 'must' for any filmlovers' library.

With Otto Preminger directing and Charles Laughton (his final part) and Henry Fonda in the cast one might be forgiven for hoping that this political drama would be a touch more impactful than in fact it is. Nonethless, the screenplay does not date itself as much as it might have and the performances are strong enough to keep one interested to the end of a fairly long film. Laughton takes the honours as the shambling ageing senator from South Carolina who is determined to prevent the President's candidate for Secretary of State (Henry Fonda) from being appointed. The plot isn't very complex by today's standards but intriguing enough for me not to spoil it here for those who haven't yet seen it. Some typical Preminger touches add to the generally fine performances. It is a film I have seen many times and it always entertains. One or two rather strange events in the film : for example, at one point the Vice President (Lew Ayres) is seen returning from an appointment in New York via a commercial flight. Would this have really happened - even in 1962? This has been commented on elsewhere.

Based loosely on Shakespeare's The Tempest, this has rightly become something of a cult classic sci-fi movie. The score (electronic music) and special effects are both way ahead of their time and suspension of disbelief is readily achieved from a cast that includes Walter Pidgeon as the scientist who discovers the remains of a lost advanced civilisation on a faraway planet. He also discovers a terrifying secret that threatens anyone who lands on the planet. If you keep in mind that this film is over 50 years old it's a remarkable achievement and a most enjoyable 90 minutes. Aldous Huxley used a quote from the play to title what was to become perhaps his most famous novel but this film, too, is an apt warning of the pitfalls of uncontrolled scientific advance. Perhaps its warning is as apt today as it was in 1956.

Despite the somewhat clunky special effects and plastic sets and costumes this series has always had a devoted following. Its plot lines, its witty and sharp dialogue, and the development of the characters seems to make you want more; and for 52 episodes 'more' is what we get. Splendid performances by all the major participants, this series has all the qualities you might wish for in a good book. You just have to keep 'turning the page'. For my money this is more fun than the old "Doctor Who" series (although the new Doctor Who series is another matter - fabulous!) The BBC, it seems to me, has always been lucky in having good writers for Sci-Fi. Right from Nigel Kneale (Quatermass, 1953 onwards) to Terry Nation and others. Great fun and completely addictive.

A stunning portrayal by Hopkins. Unfortunately the other cast members (the male ones anyway) do not look enough like the ghastly originals (!) to be convincing. For example, Goebbels is well enough acted, as are they all, but he just does not have the cadaverous look of Dr. Joseph. The Reich architect Speer is portrayed as far too nice a man. He wasn't. The exception is Bormann. Michael Lonsdale is made to look a little like this detestable man. In bearing, size and demeanor Lonsdale captures the essence of Hitler's right hand man He kept in the background most of the time, but was nonetheless an extremely powerful figure in the Third Reich and his power comes over very well. A good script and well directed, this film is well worth watching, especially now that it is readily available, uncut, on DVD.

There are I think 4 films about the last days of Hitler, of which this is the latest. The others are : The Death of Adolph Hitler Frank Finlay January 1973 UK TV 107 mins. Hitler : The Last Ten Days Alec Guinness May 1973 108 mins. The Bunker Anthony Hopkins January 1981 USA TV 150 mins.

Which is the best ? Each has its own undoubted merits. I have recently viewed all of them again. All are riveting. All these films make for uncomfortable viewing. It should not be otherwise. The knowledge that these are in essence accounts of real events makes it so. All make attempts to be as accurate as the data to hand at the time allowed. Downfall is almost certainly the best all round and probably the most authentic account, despite the fact that I have an inbuilt dislike of watching subtitled films! (My German is not good enough to follow it without the subtitles). Of course, being German dialogue does give it added verisimilitude. Ganz is quite superb. Listening to the Director's commentary (on a separate audio track on the DVD – in English, thank goodness!) it is clear that the entire company had thought the whole film through thoroughly and used whatever they could in the way of documents and accounts to make it as accurate as possible – not just the events themselves, but the character of each of the players. The most horrifying and gripping scene in Downfall is not the sick rages of the demented maniac – made all the more effective by showing other sides of Hitler's personality – but the scene where Magda Goebbels kills her own children. Somehow, this awful act summarises the terrible regime that was allowed to infect the earth for 12 years. Sterling performances by all concerned.