Reviews

Did you see what I did there, with the title? Hee hee! That probably sums this little flick.

I'm a fan of D&D/fantasy RPG stuff and the fantasy genre generally. I've enjoyed all sorts, from Lord of the Rings, to The Beastmaster. I even watched *both* D&D movies! This last one - D&D The Movie - That's my benchmark against which I measure DA:Redemption...

Both are like watching a filmed LARP session, both have the same quality of actor, acting, costume, script, choreography, pacing, predictability, cinematography etc.

The differences are that Redemption has a much smaller budget and does not pretend to be anything bigger than it actually is.

Gary Gygax, creator of D&D, god of all things Fantasy RPG and possibly the biggest name to be in anything associated with D&D, yet the best they can come up with to honour the man in THE movie about his own creation is a miniscule cameo in the far background, which actually has to be pointed out during the Special Features. The only redeeming features about D&D The Movie are the lovely Zoe McLellan for eye candy, Bruce Payne's appropriate overacting and the fact that it has the name 'Jeremy Irons' on the cover.

With so little to live up to, Redemption is quite an appropriate title for a film based on Fantasy gaming, and a computer game at that. It achieves with a few thousand what the $45 million D&D Movie could not and restores my faith in such adaptations and associations between live action production and game.

Now, obviously this is no Lord Of The Rings here. It's done by gamers for gamers, specifically fans of the Dragon Age games. It contains all the relevant references you require, without drawing too much attention to this aspect in an attempt to justify or validate itself. It has enough dark and adult moments to create the same atmosphere as the game. It has the same unrealistic and slightly over-dramatic moves in the fight choreography.

The only down-side is the lack of especially engaging dialogue, with certain moments seeming a bit contrived (IMHO). But then some players feel the same way about the game as well. The actors are almost certainly fans of the game, yet still on a par with the professionals cast in the D&D movie.

Felicia Day is the main name in this, being lead actor, a writer, producer, stunt performer and pretty much the driving force behind the production. I don't know much about her, aside from what I read in a quick Google, but she's certainly done well with what she had for this.

For the money, budget, resources and everything else, I am impressed by the production's achievements. If they can secure a full budget, I'd happily watch further productions!

I am shocked...

For once, a Peter Strauss film that has not been interesting in the slightest.

This is one of those that I'd call 'pocket money' films, in that the lead actors usually only sign up because they need some extra spends for that second yacht, or something. But being a bit of a fan of Peter Strauss, I know he tends to take roles based on the script and whether the role appeals. Him being quite a philanthropist and this essentially being a film about saving whales, I can see why he took it. I suspect the same from the likes of Richard Widmark, too.

I only picked it up because it has Peter Strauss in it. As a film overall, I think it fails to deliver. The supporting characters are quite one-dimensional and serve as plot vehicles only. The main cast are fairly single-tracked and there's almost no character development.

What threw me the most is the lack of dynamic between Charlie Lyndon and his family. There's a nice scene at the beginning which does set him up as having a bit of a loner mindset, but for the rest of the film it's like they were completely superfluous aside from a couple of scenes where they just wanted him to give up and go home. For a married man, I'd have thought he'd rely more on his family for support, rather than have them hanging around while he goes off on a crusade... but maybe that was the point.

There was more of a dynamic between Lyndon and the doctor. Indeed, at one point I thought this would be the start of an affair between them and the final parting shows this might have been the case.

I found the dialogue clichéd and unimaginitive, with the acting that delivered it utterly stilted. If I were to guess, I'd say the actors were forced to stick rigidly to some swiftly written script and not given a single inch within which to actually act. I've seen other works by each of the main cast and I know they both have done and later did do far better than this.

Overall, the film works well enough for, say, a Sunday afternoon and it has that feel of a 1980s straight-to-video release. Perhaps good to watch with young children. But beyond that, there are many, many other Peter Strauss films more worthwhile.

A 'must watch' if you're a fan of the De Laurentis Conan films, or perhaps a fan of Sandahl Bergman, Brigitte Nielsen or Arnie.

Otherwise, you may find this film sadly lacking.

Casting Sandahl Bergman in another 'Conan' film was perhaps a mistake, although her performance in this is enjoyable enough. Given the atrociously awkward script and low-budget feel of the production, I thought she did no wrong. She looks different enough (the mask helped) that you can allow yourself to be fooled. She was originally wanted to play Sonja herself, but wisely chose to play the villain instead. She does the best she can with what little they gave her and is worth watching.

Brigitte Nielsen... OK, she is pretty and had the right look at the time, but it's clear she'll not be winning any Oscars for this performance. The voice dubbing made it worse and she sounds like Deanna Troi. Fresh off the boat from Denmark, she was hired on the basis of a modelling shoot... and it shows.

Supposedly there were some issues with the rights to the planned third Conan film, or some-such, so this was a way to have Arnie playing Conan again in everything but name. Kalidor, Lord of the Land is a nice hint at a mid-career Conan. I heard that Kalidor is one of Conan's travelling aliases, or a title he took as a lord. Regardless, he's still Conan.

The story reads well enough (and possibly even better on paper), but the execution is woefully half-hearted and fails from the start. Characters who add nothing, dialogue that isn't remotely believable, choreography that is unrehearsed and telegraphed well in advance - The whole thing seems like the vast majority was cobbled together one afternoon when the crew woke up late and remembered they had a film to make.

Nevertheless, fans of the genre will likely enjoy it. It belongs to a certain crowd (I'd like to say those who couldn't even afford the Dungeons & Dragons rulebook) and the fact that people are still talking about it so many years later at least shows it has a nostalgic charm that has provided such longevity.

I happen to like it at least enough to review it here.

The Three Musketeers... a perennial favourite like Robin Hood, it seems. Do we really NEED this many movies about the same origin story of how D'Artagnan joins the Muskies?

No matter how many things you try and add, the basic story is still the same and it's down to whoever's interpretation people prefer. I have to say that the plot of The Man In The Iron Mask was at least unique. This is just yet another tired old retelling of the same old basic tale, but without even full character development. Someone in Hollywood had some money to spend. That was the whole driver for this project.

The acting was fine, but never really notable. These are all good actors, we know, but they seemed like they had almost nothing to work with and simply could not escape their contract. Macfadyen was especially dull - I could accept that as his normal character behaviour, but he was like that in every single scene. Is Athos really that dead inside that the most heartwrenching sorrows and gutwrenching action cannot even stir as much as a raised eyebrow?

I'm as much a fan as anyone of movies where you *can* switch your mind off if you so choose, but this is one where you have to - 3-D bandwaggons and flying ships galore, supported by silly gimmick jokes, notable actors (who I guess only did the film for some pocket money), great set pieces, mediocre props and the usual tired old themes and dialogue all make for one spectacularly anti-climactic film.

Take all those cool elements of previous Musketeer films, combine them and add some bits seen in other films - The end product is this 2011 version. Nothing special, nothing new and nothing more of note than Orlando Bloom's rockabilly haircut.

To use a cooking analogy - The film follows an obvious and well-used recipe, yet fails to supply the right ingredients in the right measures, bakes at the wrong temperature for the wrong time, fails to rise and then burns to a crisp, before the chef gives up completely and gets a take-out from Billy's Bad Burger Joint down the local back alley instead...

I've always been a big fan of the John Millius and Arnold films, so I was both afraid of seeing what newfangled nonsense had done to the story, yet eager to see what people were claiming was even better... Even my favourite reviewer, Catherine Reitman, gave it some favourable comments... just some, though.

The first act of the movie was cool. Heavily over-gory, but appropriately so and without being oversensational about it (ie, like 300). The storyline is rich and the environment bursting with detail. True, the plot is somewhat OTT, but this is a tale of high adventure. Given the legend, I can well believe a kid like Conan achieving what he does.

For me, a character's appearance is usually representative of the whole film's cinematography and style.

Conan is tall and panther-like, never Arnie's bricks-in-a-pillow muscley look. Jason Momoa has that down well, along with the dark hair and some vague semblance of Oriental/Eastern Steppes sort of look.... But he still has too much Hawaiian to be fully convincing, for me.

He is also a touch too boyish and pretty for my eyes and the stereotypical plastered-on scar (down through the eyeline, but subtle enough not to spoil his beauty) only adds to the cartoony Xena feel. I always saw Xena as being about barbarians who shower and exfoliate every day, with at least one stylist on hand, spray-on sweat and grime applied Mary Poppins style (from a make-up compact). In short, he is NOT Conan... he is The Scorpion King all over again, but without even the snappy dialogue. And he looks like he learned to act solely by copying three expressions from Karl Urban.

Conan films should be dark, dirty, bloody, filthy and have almost NO characters that we would consider 'Hollywood beautiful', unless they are princesses or gods (Sandahl Bergman as a Valkyrie :) ).

But regardless, the first half of the film is good - Slightly cheesy plot and nothing that's not been thought of before, but convincing enough that you go with it and executed with enough unique moments to be thoroughly entertaining.

Then, all of a sudden, everything falls flat... The sets start getting over-detailed and like they're only there to look visually impressive to a 3-D audience. Conversely, the acting got worse and all the characters magically became one-dimensional. It's like the filmmakers just got bored and did 'whatever' just to finish the project and collect a paycheque.

We meet the female co-star - She's gorgeous, pretty, shiny and a former model... totally unsuited to a Conan flick. The plot gets lazy and starts sounding like a generic, cheap fantasy film. The swordplay gets all spinny and everyone suddenly starts fighting like Eastern martial artists. The stunts get all Jackie Chan and the only thing missing is heavy wire-work with people flying around. As a swordsman myself, the moves in the original Conan are flawed and over-staged but still work and are realistic enough to entertain. The stuff in this new film is just pure show and no-one after the first third of the film ever looks like they have even picked up a sword before. There was only one move in the whole film that grabbed my attention. 2 mere seconds of footage throughout the whole thing!

Chuck in a random big sea monster to complete the circle and you have your massive Hollywood crowd-pleaser... even though I've been more entertained by a $2000 B-Movie.

I was not a fan of the casting either, for the most part. Ron Perlman does a fantastic job of Conan's father... Not quite as legendary or with as epic a feel as William Smith, but he is easily the best actor in the cast. He has real presence, proper depth and, as with his lower budget films, is the only reason this film is worth watching.

Jason Momoa may have a good look, but he's too pretty and not once did I get the impression that his Conan was a deep thinker, or in any way the wise, quietly contemplative man I know him to be. He's just a mindless, violent thug with pretty looks and a bit of muscle. He even looked like his entire acting repertoire consists solely of 3 facial expressions stolen from Karl Urban. He is eye candy with a sword, but nothing more. For all his faults, Arnold actually brought his Conan to life. Momoa's portrayal will be quickly forgotten.

Samuel L Jackson??!! Why is he even here? He has what I call Morgan Freeman syndrome, since Morgan also crops up in a lot of similar roles. Yes, he has a good narrative voice, but there is no mystical quality and he doesn't even sound like a chronicler... He just sounds like Samuel L Jackson, sat down the pub, telling us about a film he watched the other day. He might as well have just said, "Back in 5000BC, the following happened:".

Stephen Lang... OK, he was a decent bad guy in Avatar... But now Hollywood are casting him in all their bad guy roles and the same trick does not work everywhere. There was almost no difference in his performance between here and Avatar. In fact, he wasn't even scary in this. Absolutely no presence at all. That's why James Earl Jones is still The Man!

The rest of the cast, the plot, the film in general is just chalked up as 'another film I saw, once'.

"OK, let's make a Dirty Dozen sequel".

"Right - What happens in this one?"

"Well, since it's a sequel of a massively successful film, I reckon we're on to a winner so long as we do *exactly* what they did in the first film...."

And thus was born this film.

Aside from the reprised roles, almost every other character is a vague and pale imitation of their 1967 counterparts. The plot has feeble attempts to be different, such as inclusion of a 13th convict to make a "Baker's Dozen" (but he gets killed in a random act of rebellion - Oh, the drama).

Lee Marvin especially is lumbered with pretty much the exact same dialogue from the first film and in fact his line delivery often seems tired and bored - It's as if this ain't the first time he's dragged a bunch of condemned military convicts out for a suicide mission... or the second... or the third... Marvin probably knew this was a complete BS movie, but did his best anyway. So too do Ernie Borgnine and Richard Jaeckel. The three seem like very old friends just going through the motions in an oft-encountered, unwinnable situation (perhaps because they are).

I rarely fail to see a film through to the end, but I would have switched this off had it not been for this kinda cool early example of Ricco Ross's work. A consistently solid and dependable actor, he actually gets an interesting role here as a former Policeman (but still playing "Token Black soldier mkII" based on Jim Brown's 1967 Pvt Jefferson).

Indeed, about the only other actors who stand any chance of carrying this film are Ricco Ross and Sonny Landham.

Sonny shows that quiet inner strength that later becomes legendary as Billy in Predator. Ricco has a cool outward exterior, which belies the complex character beneath, later shining through as Pvt. Frost in Aliens.

Notable also for featuring Gavan O'Herlihy, famous as the bearded warrior Airk Thaughbaer in Willow and Captain Leroy in Sharpe's Eagle.

I had slight reservations about this, mainly as I've seen a lot of tacky, poorly acted Hallmark feel-good films lately.

It has Peter Strauss in it, who in my opinion cannot do any wrong. I always watch his films, even if he's only a minor character, simply because I know at least that's one performance I will thoroughly enjoy.

This also has Charlton Heston, which immediately stands any film in good stead. The fact that I share his birthday is pure co-incidence, I assure you! But I needn't have worried - Two of the greatest actors around, both leading the film. A definite winner.

The town and it's people make for a tough place to be someone like Charlie Jnr. I have American friends who served in Vietnam and I've always been interested in the cultural history behind it. I've seen films about the horrors of war and the trauma soldiers endured, the atrocities they committed, the psychological problems, the wrongs of war, the Hippy movement and free love, reintegration into society and almost every other aspect of the culture at the time. Many have been done to clichéd levels, so it was very interesting to see a fairly unique issue in Charlie Jnr's character The film has an anti-Vietnam War theme, but subtly so. Charlie Jnr's issues are so unique that he's not bothered explaining them before and I doubt the town would change their views on him anyway. That issue is never resolved, which I find very true to real life, but I love that the story is about the people. Frankly so.

Possibly the most overwhelming concept is the strength of family. Even though Charlie Snr feels shamed by his son, to the point of disowning him, he *still* holds on to the fact that they are family, albeit on a subconscious level.

In fact, there is so much going on behind the characters I do not believe I can properly describe it. It's probably not all completely sunk in yet, even after a week since viewing the film. It's a whirlwind of history, memories and emotions between father and son that Heston and Strauss convey so effortlessly. This is why I love these actors - They bring their characters to life so well!! I'll leave this here before I start really rambling and simply say: You HAVE to see this film!!!

Chalking this one up as another Peter Strauss film for my collection - ie, he was the only reason I chose to watch this film.

OK, Pete doesn't have a big role in this and he spends half of it in his customary hands-on-hips pose, but he does it so well!!

As for the non-Straussian parts of the film: Watching it for the first time here in 2011, on an old VHS, I could really feel the atmosphere of 1969. It was confusing for a lot of the contemporary youth and the culture was something of a mish-mash mess. I'd have hated it as I wouldn't have a clue where I stood and I guess that's why Michael Douglas's character first comes off as a naive, clueless ass. I didn't think I'd like this film.

It's not a plot I could personally identify with, but I was certainly engaged by it. I could almost feel Carl growing up, or at least shucking off his youthful naievete and finally understanding at least some of the crazy adult world he seeks approval from.

I have friends who served in the US forces during Vietnam and what they told me of society's mentality back then seems really well reflected in the characters' mindsets. A very interesting journey and a film I will be watching again sometime!

The adventures of a Police psychologist - Dr. Nick Moloney is a member of the LAPD's Behavioural Sciences department. This means he is a criminal profiler, a hostage negotiator, a community care worker and the man responsible for keeping the cops sane on the streets of LA... and usually all at the same time.

In addition, he also has a young daughter and an ex-wife, who is also a psychologist, to cope with. And if that wasn't enough, Nick himself is also a bona fide badge-carrying cop! The trials and tribulations of his work and his life are many, but these are not just problems that can be solved with a gun and a witty one-liner. Neither are they complex mysteries conquered by deductive reasoning of 'the little grey cells'... These are real life matters than can only be resolved through understanding people.

Peter Strauss is back in the lead of a TV series and it's a role that he was born to play. Strauss carries it with his typical skill and amazing realism.

The supporting cast are also notable names; Cherie Lunghi as Nick's ex-wife, Wendell Pierce as the upright and principled District Attorney and an early appearance by Ashley Johnson as Nick's delightful daughter.

Nestor Serrano is especially outstanding as the Police senior Lieutenant, seemingly a typical hardball cop but upon closer examination a very human and down-to-earth kinda guy.

One gets the feeling a lot of the episodes are based on true stories, for the content is always realistic and tangible, to the point where the basic plots can seem contrived... but that again is true life. The events don't matter so much as the focus and the point of this series is to look at the characters and their journeys through these encounters.

As the series progresses, we have seen enough of the characters' typical days that the plots can go further into more unusual and sometimes very dark twists. The viewer is taken out of the comfort zone and given a real ride into what is probably one of the best perspectives on policing, crime, psychology and family, especially since it explores the sides of these elements we don't always consider. The season finale is such a touching and human episode, yet so close to reality and the aspects of life we don't like to think about - It's one of those tales that really needs to be told.

Alas, as with many great TV shows, this one was cancelled, but we do still have an entire season to enjoy and if ever this is released on DVD it's one I will definitely be pouncing upon!! An absolute 10/10!!

Based on the novel 'Points of Light' by Linda Gray Sexton.

This is another one I bought for the sole reason that it stars Peter Strauss. As always, Strauss is excellent in the role given him, lending both a sense of a literary character and a real person. That said, it's not an easy or involved role and it's more of a support to the mother and son...

This is my first Marlo Thomas film and her performance here as Jessie reminds me somewhat of Shelley Duvall in The Shining.

The main story is about Jessie's trauma after the loss of her favourite child, Jamie. Exploring from grief through to possible hauntings, insanity and dangerous hallucinations, the attachment and loss felt by Jessie is clear.

Less obvious is the nature of Jamie's sudden and disturbing reappearance. For a while the viewer is unsure whether the child is actually a hallucination or a ghost and the direction and cinematography cast quite a creepy scene as the mother explores these strange occurrences.

Unfortunately, what isn't made clear is the family background. The first half of the novel deals with Jessie's perspectives on life and how ill-matched she and her husband Sam ought to be. They come from very different walks of life, yet work very well together. This is never explained in the film, so we just see an oddly paired couple.

Missing too, are fuller explorations of Jessie's reasons for being so detached from her family - Whilst it is obvious why she is/was so close to little Jamie, the film does not incorporate her reasons for being so distant from Jamie's twin sister Meggie, older sister Anna or her husband and his mother-in-law.

Lastly, a lot of the family dynamic in general is ignored, aside from the most salient of plot points. Good actors were cast in this film, but were given nothing to do for the most part, so when their few 'big scenes' come along (the aforementioned salient plot points) they must act with all their worth. As a result, the scenes appear overly dramatic, overacted and simply tacked on because the characters have been so ignored thus far.

Being so ignored by the main plot of mother and son, the other characters can appear aloof and uncaring. The reasons for this are explained in the book, but not even given so much as lip service here in the film. This may have been intended by the director to make the audience dislike the family and identify better with Jessie, as later on the suggestion seems to be that Jessie is going mad. After some heartfelt expressions by Sam and Anna, Jessie seemingly endangers the life of her other daughter, Meggie. We are then drawn more to empathise with the rest of the family and their own struggles, both with the loss of Jamie and now a mother and wife possibly losing her grip on reality.

This film would definitely appeal more to parents than casual viewers, although it does well enough for a Sunday afternoon psychological thriller.

At the time of first watching this version of Murder on the Orient Express, I had not yet read the book. Nor had I seen the "amazing" other films. Indeed, the only reason I picked it up was to complete my Peter Strauss collection!!

Having since become familiar with other versions, I feel somewhat better qualified now to write a review.

I have to say that the 1974 version with the star-studded cast is probably only so highly regarded because of its star-studded cast. Some have even suggested watching the '74 film *instead* of reading the book.

First off - Nothing will ever compare to the book.

Secondly - This is a 'made for TV' version and doesn't try to be anything more. It does make a few attempts to be unique and interesting, or at least different, by attempting to modernise the tale. It does so because many of the original references are no longer relevant and will not generally be understood by audiences younger than about 50. But alas, herein lies it's very downfall.

Many reviewers have already ranted about the 'crimes' against Christie's original. Personally, I can see where they were trying to go with this version, but still regret the omission of characters and the changing of certain key plot details - The most glaring is the reduction of the Twelve persons involved down to Nine. The reason 12 were included was to be the same number as that of a jury. Without this I feel the story is too far compromised.

What I will mention is that, while Alfred Molina's performance does not begin to compare to David Suchet, he does offer a very unique interpretation of the character. The performance was enjoyable enough, but Molina is no Suchet. In my mind, Suchet is the ONLY Poirot and indeed, Christie's grandson himself has expressed how Suchet is the most convincing Poirot. I can very easily accept Molina as a 'young' Poirot, perhaps fairly early on in his career. I would call this a 'pocket-money' role - Something an actor does for a bit of cash on the side.

With that in mind, the rest is standard TV movie faire, with two exceptions...

Peter Strauss, the very reason I bought the DVD, always impresses me when he plays a 'bad guy'. Strauss is often cast as a neat, suave, smooth sort of 'nice guy', well suited to wearing a suit. However, he happens to do 'nasty piece of work' exceptionally well and I fear that his impressive performance here is utterly buried beneath the sludge of the movie itself.

The second is the makeup department. A lot of their work is subtle, so much so that those not very familiar with members of the cast might not notice just how much of a transformation has been worked on these actors. Strauss in particular looks so different when portraying Cassetti ... truly evil!!

The good news is that David Suchet has now filmed a proper version of Murder on the Orient Express, which is slated for screening later this month (July 2010).

Overall - This 2001 version is good watch if you have never encountered Poirot before. It also stands up just as well if you have never read the books or seen a Suchet portrayal. Perhaps something I would recommend as an introduction, or for a young audience.

One of the most lasting memories of this film is the quality of acting. Not only is it outstandingly good, but the characters actually *feel* like they're in a book. It's hard to describe, but watching the film actually feels like you're seeing what the reader sees!

Peter Strauss fans will be treated to his usual talent and easy ability with accents, as well as his knack for bringing his character to life and making the viewer empathise with him. I always find his acting very compelling.

Jean Smart brilliantly captures the essence of Ora Baxter, but in very subtle ways that might escape the casual viewer. When Ora does finally express herself outwardly, it's all the more effective when Jean cuts loose!

Wil Horneff was only 14 or so at the time of filming, but his skill is that you'd only expect of a far older and more seasoned actor.

Philip Seymour Hoffman and Brad Greenquist do an outstanding job. It takes very smart acting to play dumb and these roles of 'dumb swamp folk' are an exceptional challenge, which they carried off very well.

As with all films based on novels, there are differences in the way each is presented. Some things on paper will not work on film and vice versa. For the main, this version presents the story very well and retains the emotional essence of the book. You can tell where the story is going almost from the outset, but this is not a tale of where the characters go - It's about how they get there!!

This film will appeal to all ages and I personally wish I'd seen this a lot sooner!!

Seriously, I *only* bought this film because it's part of my Peter Strauss collection.

I thought it was quite fitting to have him play a President of the United States.

The film itself wasn't bad. One of those to switch off and enjoy for 90 minutes. Samuel L Jackson was..... Samuel L Jackson. Ice Cube had his moment of being an actor and showing that there are *two* roles he can play ('Angry Attitude Man' and 'Cheesy Southern Black Preacher (who is possibly gay)'). Scott Speedman was.... Scott Speedman, although I suspect that roles like this and Underworld are helping him come to the forefront, where he may later start to exhibit some real talent.

Willem Dafoe was an excellent 'nasty piece of work', as always!!!

Peter Strauss was amazing as always, even in a minor supporting role. The President was clearly a liberal peace-loving dude of the 'why can't we all just get along' brigade, but seemed on the right track to actually achieving that peace... if it weren't for the political warmongers who insist and thrive upon conflict. He was actually quite a weak character, a dreamer whose power lies solely in the support of others. Quite a different role for Strauss!

As for the President's Tupac line - Why not!!

I found myself torn between which of the title characters to root for.

My personal tastes (and the fact that I love Peter Strauss's work) had me going for Abel, the man who had endured and built his empire up from nothing, only to be further battered by a bureaucrat.

But there were moments when I switched, despising Abel for stooping so low and wronging people without just cause, instead really feeling for Kane and the problems he unfairly now struggled with.

And so it goes throughout the story - You're never sure who deserves to win, while all the time hoping they will resolve their issues and become the powerful friends they could so clearly be.

The conclusion is inevitable and can be seen coming a mile off, but that is the point - YOU know how this will end, but so engaging are the characters that you pray for a plot twist or surprise that will change things!!

Sam Neil and Pete Strauss are phenomenal actors in their own right. Putting the two together in this was sheer genius!!

Both of them took on awkward accents and delivered them faultlessly. I made a point of checking in with some friends from Boston and my Polish co-workers. All agree that the accents are very authentic and flawless.

Strauss's accent in particular begins to take on subtle hints of American, as he spends more time in his new land. He also has amazing continuity, as he is never seen without the Baron's silver bracelet of authority. Any time his sleeve, accidentally or otherwise, rides up high enough you will see the glinting silver band.

Better still is the stark contrast between Abel's honest and outwardly expressive personality and Kane's quiet and dignified internalisation. Both men are shrewd, yet so very different in their methods.

The supporting cast also do a fantastic job. So often in a series like this, there are those who simply cannot act (or more often, they overact) and frequently spoil scenes - Not so in Kane & Abel!! The viewer is drawn in to identify with these as well, from their family and friends, to their colleagues, everyone stands out.

One most important thing to note is that this mini-series is based on a novel. One of the same name, by Jeffrey Archer, in point of fact.

That being, it should be noted that TV version is rarely the same as the book - Many things just do not and can never translate from page to film. Timing, pace, cinematography, interpretation, budget and many other things mean that things will differ betwixt the two.

That said, Kane & Abel is a phenomenal series.

It remains sufficiently faithful to the novel to engage the viewer and deliver the story in all it's glory. There are very few minor plot points excluded and none that are crucial to the tale. Others are easily implied or given enough attention for viewers to get the full background. The story itself is realistic enough that I suspect there is some factual basis.

Let's open this with a quote:

"It was true to the novel and turned out very well, I think. I keep looking for it on cable TV, but it never seems to show up. I came across a commercial videotape of it and was alarmed to find that it was cut to 90 minutes and barely recognisable in terms of my book".

David Morrell Author of The Brotherhood Of The Rose.

That alone is sufficient for me to recommend this film - The author of the book himself is a fan.

As Morrell's comment makes obvious - Get the full-length version. It just so happens, I ordered the new full-length DVD from Sweden. Plays fine on Region 2 players, but reportedly works on other regions too...

As for the film - It's not really a Spy flick... More a thriller, but somewhat different. The organisations and professions themselves are not so important. What matters most is the relationship between the two 'brothers' and their 'father'.

I suppose it's a family tale, set in the genre of a political/spy thriller. Some very good factual background and brilliant actors combine to make this an enjoyable watch. The secondary support cast are not particularly animated, but then they are often just passing faces who serve one purpose - Usually getting killed.

What really makes this is Robert Mitchum and his interaction between Peter Strauss and David Morse. The two latter actors in scenes alone have a very brotherly way about them and you get the impression these two actors were close friends on and off set. Even when they're not in the same scene, all three have a sense of family about them.

James B. Sikking and Connie Sellecca are engaging in their own right, as well as great vehicles for the main 3 to play off.

The film itself does feel like a 70s/80s thriller flick, but that is in perfect keeping with the period the novel is set in, so it works well for the story.

In terms of plot, it's an engaging one that doesn't always go where you think it will and ends, like all good thrillers, with a fantastic and surprising twist!!

Despite being inspired by true events, this story doesn't follow the typical trend of investigating the murder, catching the killer etc.

Instead, it focuses on the people who remain and where they go from there. In this case, two young LA girls, whose father had abandoned them in favour of a life in the Rodeo road shows. The girls must leave behind their comfortable life of plenty and get used to life with their father, on a small-town ranch without so much as a telephone.

Thrust in the deep end as a sudden single parent, this real-life cowboy is forced to reconnect with them. The "Father's Choice" comes when his old life again calls him to glory as a champion and he must choose between being a cowboy and being a father.

Although the tale progresses as you might expect, it is nonetheless very touching and the cast do an outstanding job of bringing true feeling into their portrayals.

Impressive anyway, given the casting of both Peter Strauss and Mary McDonnell, but the real stars are the young girls - Michelle Trachtenberg and Yvonne Zima.

A fantastic film based on the novel of the same name by Tim O'Brien.

When making a film of a book, there is a right way and a wrong one. I get the distinct feeling that this is the right way!!

There are often so many complexities and dimensions to a literary character that sometimes one simply cannot translate that into film... This is one of those exceptions.

Strauss and Quinlan head an impressive cast and lead us deep into this mystery with gripping skill. Both play their roles to the very hilt, bringing massively complex characters right off the page and into the reality of this film.

The supporting cast too have been well chosen for their acting skills; - Peter Boyle brings us skin-crawling repulsion for selfish and seedy campaign manager Tony Carbo, Richard Anderson and Pamela Perry are wonderfully caring neighbours the Rasmussens, Nancy Sorel as Kathy's sister who never really trusted John... and Hrothgar Matthews as journalist Nat Leming so unscrupulously persistent to "getting the story" and uncaringly aloof to the damage it has on those involved.

Special mention must go to Stephen Miller for his portrayal of deputy Vinny Pearson. So immediately judgemental and so repulsive to watch during the scene where he punches John, knowing full well that no-one will try and stop him - He is the voice that speaks the secret thoughts of a whole community who, despite their earnest and dutiful diligence in searching for the missing Kathy, still regard John with the same baseless suspicion as his sister-in-law. A fantastic personification of the many cruel twists that fate throws at John.

And yet, the star of the show is Peter Strauss as John Waylan. We feel so much pity for this man, burdened by the weight of such an unlucky life at no fault of his own... Yet has he now possibly been 'turned to the dark side' and has had fate delivered into his own hands by the final failing of his sanity? Who will you believe?

A true mystery and a film that is both entertaining as well as thought-provoking and engaging.

Based on the true story that set a legal precedent in family law, this is the tale of an irreconcilable couple about to break their relationship, when the arrival of a child suddenly turns their conflict into a whole new world of complexity.

While both seek to do the 'right thing', their ideas of what is right are as diametrically opposed as their feelings toward each other. The tale continues to progress as you might expect, but some shocking revelations and the knowledge that true stories do not always have happy endings, you find yourself pulled more and more to the edge of your seat... leaving you poised there to the very end!

Top marks must go to both Peter Strauss and Rachel Ticotin, both parents themselves,who bring such palpable qualities to their roles as a clashing couple - It is ironic to note that the two actors were actually married in real life, about 4 years after filming!

The night before watching ThickerThan Blood, I'd been watching Peter Strauss playing a kidnapper - With that image still in my head, I was impressed that Strauss's acting ability had my perception switch from a creepy, disturbed character to a loving father the instant he appeared on screen.

A parent himself, Strauss brings obvious substantiation to his realistic portrayal of a father, but equally impressive is Ticotin - Also a parent, her depiction of an unfit mother is both realistic and outstanding!

I've never particularly liked TV or movie portrayals of 'based on a true story' stuff before.

But since becoming a Peter Strauss fan, I've learnt to appreciate the good ones, at least.

The first point is to never compare a 'dramatic telling' of a story with the real account. That's why it always says "based" on a true story. It still has to entertain the casual viewers, which is an unfortunate but necessary part.

The second point is to not assume who the story focuses on. This is not the harrowing tale of a kidnap victim - Enough of those already exist and there are reasons of privacy why so little of this film focuses on what she goes through.

This is about the kidnapper himself.

I found this film to be quite fast moving. In part, this is because it's predictable... You know from the opening scene Strauss's character somehow gets caught. But what you don't know is whether his kidnap victim survives. You don't know what happens to the other people and no clue is given until right before it happens.

All the while, you're hoping for some kind of happy ending... and you never can be sure if you'll get it.

What makes this such an engaging film is the fact that events are real. There are, of course, some small factual inaccuracies - Partly through dramatic licence, partly through preserving the privacy of the real people - For example, the real life kidnap victim has always declined every interview request and just wants to be left alone. This film respects that.

Great to see Paul Winfield playing a role he's well-suited to. It's similar to the Lt. Traxler he played in Terminator, but with some surprising twists.

Robert Lee Ermey handles the subtlety of his role exceedingly well - An experienced FBI Agent suddenly out of his depth, yet trying desperately not to show it, faced with a type of adversary he has no experience of.

Samantha Mathis was interesting and realistic. She doesn't go through the typical Hollywood portrayals of people in these situations. She does what real people would do.

Of course, the show stealer is Peter Strauss. I've seen him play both outright good guys and complex characters who sit either side of the line. I've also seen him play characters where their morality could be good or bad, depending on your perspective.

In this, he's clearly the bad guy, but he plays the role in such a way that you feel you're allowed to like him. Perhaps even root for him, despite knowing how dark and repulsive he still is.

As always, his character is portrayed with absolute realism- Not the utter madness of a psycho or the hyper-intellectual of Hanibal Lecter, but with the intelligence and realistic subtle complexity of a real person. This is not a Hollywood villain, this is what real people are like.

And for a final surprise that will make you smile with satisfaction - The film makers save a well-played twist to the very end!

On the surface, this is a tale of murders and the trials and circumstances surrounding them.

But behind that are the stories of the two principal parties. Both superbly acted, both with reasonable accounts, both with the seeds of doubt. You never know which is the side of truth.

I don't know the full true story behind this film, but the idea of Cullen's "FBI" defence and the jury's reception of such is one amazing concept... See the film and decide for yourself.

Based on the book 'Texas Justice' by Gary Cartwright, this is another of Strauss's outstanding roles. As a fan of his work, this was the first role I saw where he isn't playing the obvious hero.

His portrayal of T. Cullen Davis is an interesting departure and the transitions between the complex character's stances are subtle but very realistic. You are never sure whether to root for him or not.

I've not seen a Heather Locklear movie before, but although she's mostly depicted as innocent (in the matter of the murders, anyway) the exact same can be said of her portrayal of the equally complex Priscilla Davis. Does she deserve to win or lose?

A definite must see!!