Reviews

"Mr Turner seems to have taken leave of form altogether!". This shocked observation by a museumgoer in the film, when faced with one of Turner's most innovative works, neatly sums up my feelings about this film. Perhaps, like it did her, history will prove me wrong, but I felt that, while beautifully shot and an atmospheric reflection on the great master's character, the film is hampered by a lack of an overarching story. Every scene is a well-crafted vignette into Turner's life, but fails to move beyond that because we, the audience, don't know how to place it. It is difficult to empathize with the characters, because we are largely left guessing about their motivations and their histories. The fact that we first meet Turner in middle age doesn't help in this respect. He comes to us as a fully grown stranger, and by the end we feel as though we've observed him somewhat but not really gotten to know him.

Mr Turner is not so much a biopic, then, as an impressionistic portrait. I like to think that I am not a viewer who needs to be taken by the hand entirely - when it comes to films as well as paintings - but with Mr Turner I felt that a little bit of "form" would have gone a long way.

Some people - sadly many movie critics - don't get science fiction. They see it as nothing more than a bunch of techno-babble and futuristic eye-candy designed to pander to the unevolved tastes of schoolboys and grown-up nerds. Superficial, they call it. I say it is they who cannot see past the surface.

Like many people, I love sci-fi not for its bling, but for its ability to bring truly epic stories. When you get to use the vastness of space and the intricacies of time travel as plot elements, you can write a story that's simply on another plane. A story that puts mankind and the human condition in a much grander perspective then any other format allows.

Of course, sci-fi has just as many bad screenplays and productions as any other genre. It doesn't always work. With Interstellar it resoundingly *does*, however, as Christopher Nolan reveals himself to be a true master of its instruments. He uses space, to show loneliness that only the vastness of the cosmos can inspire, and time, to create an expanse of separation that is heart-wrenching unlike anything that could exist on Earth.

As with many of the best sci-fi stories, the driving force behind the plot is the threat mankind's extinction, but it's a threat that is simple, believable and not overplayed. Another hallmark of good science fiction that it displays is the use of good science. Why some critics have chosen this film in particular to pick holes in, I fail to understand. The ideas on which it is based have a firm grounding in theoretical physics (something we likely have Kip Thorne to thank for). Naturally, the film allows itself some freedom to develop these ideas and speculate on the more interesting possibilities that follow from them, but that is where the -fiction suffix comes in. The important thing is that very little of what happens in the movie seems patently impossible given our current knowledge of physics, while the more wildly imaginative elements that it affords itself are scientifically in uncharted territory. This too, is exactly as it should be.

The only thing I could fault Interstellar for is the Love-as-a-cosmic-force angle, which is becoming a little trite as a sci-fi/fantasy trope. Fortunately, the plot doesn't lean that heavily on it and it never really bothered me.

In short, Interstellar has all the makings of a classic within cinema at large, and as a standard within its genre by which other films will be measured.

Jamie Mathieson's writing is turning out to be a real breath of fresh air for this series. Last week's episode was great, and this one even better. A story of just the right size with some great (and surprisingly scary) monsters. No rushed or contrived denouement here, but a thrilling plot with a clever resolution that not only made sense but brought with it a highly overdue moment of kick-ass from the Doctor.

(I so prefer it when The Doctor actually defeats the monster rather than use his reputation for defeating monsters to talk the monster in to submission. You'd think they'd stop falling for that after a while.)

More of these please! =)

It pains me to have to disparage anything that stars Stephen Fry, but I'm really not convinced by Kingdom. Full disclosure: I've not made it through the first season so it may be my fault for not putting in the effort.

The show is mildly entertaining, I suppose. It ambles on amicably with a few japes here and there. Nothing too exciting. Its saving grace is the aforementioned Mr. Fry who manages to add some charm and likability. But other than that it all just feels so trite and uninspired. And above all: it feels old. From the opening shots to the fonts that are used, the colour balance, the cinematography, the music... If it weren't for the widescreen format I'd be sure I was watching something from the 90s, if not 80s - not a show from 2007.

Unfortunately, its not just the production that feels dated. Most of the supporting characters are the sort of stereotype that would be more at home in a 70s sitcom. The sister (Beatrice) in particular reminds me of a character from "Grace & Favour" (Miss Lovelock), the ill-conceived sequel to "Are you being served?". To be fair, Kingdom is a little more watchable than that, but sadly only marginally.

Even its dated feel could be forgiven if this was made up for in plot, but it just isn't. The cases aren't particularly interesting, and they are worked through at same calm pace as an episode of Morse. However, where the latter starts with an intriguing murder mystery and builds tension from there, Kingdom just sort of goes through the motions; preferably with a bit of a moral to the story thrown in at the end.

All in all, it makes for good Sunday afternoon telly for the elderly or those with a weak heart. Kind of like a pastoral, British antidote to Breaking Bad (its opposite in every respect), to be enjoyed after a big Sunday lunch and napped through most of the way. But sadly not worth it any other time.

(I really am sorry, Mr. Fry...)

It's been many years since I saw this film but I remember at the time (I would have been about 8 or 9 years old) I laughed and laughed. And that's exactly what this movie is supposed to do: make kids laugh. And if their parents get anything out of it that's a nice bonus. So everyone here who's critiquing it as if they were expecting an intelligent grown-up comedy (reviews whining about it being "crude" or even "too dirty" - seriously?) have only themselves to blame and should probably have a bit of a think about what they're doing knocking a funny, innocent kids movie for using slapstick and being a tad predictable (that's what's great about being young: clichés are often still new and so execution is more important than novelty).

If you are a child or have one, this movie will not disappoint.

This new special is not as terrible as other reviewers would have you believe. I believe it's more disappointing than intrinsically bad. Had this been the first time I ever watched Jonathan Creek, I imagine I might have enjoyed it.

However, with the series strong track record in mind, this Easter special feels laboured and not very fresh. The central mystery - a body vanishing from a locked room - is making its 3rd appearance in the show's history (at least), and on one occasion the solution was practically the same. Seasoned fans (Creekians? Creeksters?) therefore may find themselves puzzling most of it together well before the final reveal. The novice viewer, however, might well be in the dark to the end and get that great satisfaction that fans have come to love.

What bothered me more, though, were the side-plots. The whole business at the school felt bit messy and wasn't a good enough mystery to warrant so much screen time. And the bit tucked on at the end just felt excessive, adding absolutely nothing to the story. But my real beef is with the flimsy and implausible "spiritual" motive that makes an uncalled-for sideways entry at the end, and which is decidedly un- Creekian.

Still, I just haven't the heart to flunk this episode. I'm too fond of the series for that, and part of me will always be happy to see some more of it. I just hope that the new series, which is in the pipeline for 2014, won't push me over the edge into bitterness territory.

After the rushed and deus-ex-machina driven solutions of previous episodes, it was a relief to finally see a well-constructed story again. Every element that led to the story's final resolution was presented in due course, rather than dropping out of the sky at the last minute.

The scenario is perhaps not incredibly inventive, but it is well worked out and the episode has a very good flow to it. There's lots of action and some nice shots, but they are interspersed with more pedestrian scenes to help you catch your breath and let the characters interact and develop a bit. This adds depth and believability to the story. It feels like Clara and the Doctor are actually living and contributing to this adventure, rather than watching bewilderedly while the universe explodes around them, only to accidentally save it 49 minutes in.

If this is an indication of what's to come, then I think we may look forward to a very enjoyable half-season.

Top Gear is one of those rare shows that was given a bunch of second chances, until it got good. Much like the production of a high- performance car, it took years of tweaking and fine-tuning, and even a major overhaul going back to the drawing board, and it's really paid off. What kind of show is it? The obvious answer is "a car show", but it's not. If it was, I wouldn't be watching it, and my guess is neither would 90% of their audience. A better answer is "a comedy show/travel programme mixed with a bit of scrapheap challenge and a dollop of celebrity contestery (except not lame or in any way on ice)".

And I won't have any of this whining about it being bigoted or insensitive. Sure, maybe some of the jokes don't land and maybe Germans and Mexicans tend to be the butt of the joke more often than necessary. But it is exactly this unfilteredness, in which off-colour, ill-judged jokes are allowed to happen that makes the programme more likable. It adds to the feeling that you're simply watching a few blokes having fun, and lots of it. Top Gear isn't about motoring; it's the answer to the question "what would you really like to do?" when that question is directed to the 14-year old boy that we all have inside us (but not in that way, as Clarkson might say).

And so we seem them blowing up caravans, driving the fastest car in the world (and then the car that was built to beat the fastest car in the world), taking on outlandish challenges against stunning backdrops around the globe, constantly messing with each other and enjoying themselves immensely throughout. And the enjoyment rubs off. Rather than feel jealous, you find yourself having a great time with the presenters.

Someone once said that good TV should feel like time spent in good company. And while I don't agree with Jeremy Clarkson's politics or Richard Hammond's hair dye, for every episode of Top Gear I am the best of chums with these guys. I heartily recommend you get to know them and hang out with them some time.

It was only weeks before seeing this film that I had read the book it is based on, so I suppose this might have taken away some of the excitement I might have felt had I watched it "unspoiled". Since I was already familiar with the central premise of 6 narratives intertwined and interleaved across time and space, its ingenuity might have dulled on me somewhat, so I will attempt to combine my impression of the plot from reading the book with its cinematic realization.

Although I found the theme of interconnectedness appealing, I never felt that it had been developed to its full potential. I continuously had the feeling that we were building up to some great revelation or insight, which would give meaning to the connections. That is, not an explanation in a metaphysical sense, but a purpose for them in the narrative. We were promised, to quote the IMDb synopsis, "an exploration of how the actions of individual lives impact one another in the past, present and future", but instead the film offers only loose links and similarities, save perhaps for the implication that the same "souls" keep finding each other in different lives.

Some have praised this absence of a message as a strength. They argue that David Mitchell and the Wachowski siblings have done well to leave the story's themes open to interpretation. However, just as a painting needs colours and contours, so does a story require decisions from the narrator to give it definition. In this particular case, I believe, the picture has been left too blurry.

That said, but for a few minor flaws the film is a graphically stunning recreation of the book, especially in the more futuristic segments, which does much to enhance the cosmic scale on which we are meant to see it. The same can be said of the way the different stories are cut together, which is a well-chosen departure from novel. I do confess I would rather have been spared Tom Hanks' attempt at a non-specific English/Scottish/Irish accent (which at times even has hints of pirate- speak in it), as well as the cross-dressing and cross-racial make up of some of the leading actors, all of which seem to have been done in the interest of the connectedness theme, but ends up feeling somewhat forced and more than a little toe-curling. But these are minor complaints which I am happy to overlook when calling this film a remarkable effort, somewhat limited by the story it had to work with.

Contrary to my expectations, this is not the Zooey Deschanel show. Because that is what I thought it would be when my friend told me about it. I mean, the premise of this show is that she - Zooey Deschanel - plays a bubbly, quirky-but-cute girl who moves into an all-guys apartment. Now, that's the same character she plays in every film and every series she's ever been in. It's also the same persona she uses when she sings in her band, or gives interviews, or (I imagine) blogs about baking Dr. Seuss-themed cupcakes for a company of lumberjacks.

Don't get me wrong - it works. For me. On so many levels. But the problem is that she is just so aware of it. She's a dazzling indie girl with a brain and a body, and my god does she know it. So a show completely focusing on that would be unbearable.

But surprisingly, this show isn't about that at all. It isn't even really about her character that much. Most of the comedy comes from the male characters, who are played by non-famous and extremely talented actors, and who find themselves in situations which as funny as they are fresh and relatable.

So, to reiterate, this is not a show about Zooey Deschanel. This is a show about life as a twenty-something in the twenty-first century. It's Friends except not set or made in the nineties. It's great and it makes me laugh a lot. And I highly recommend it.

This film is a testament to everyone involved, as well as to Stephen King's imagination. The performances are excellent and, typical of a Stephen King story, there is some real human drama that drives the story just as much as the more supernatural occurrences. The one problem I had, however, was with the latter. The thing is, most anybody, if they saw something like the events in this movie, would be shaken, to say the least. And not just at the time, but long after, questioning what they saw, if it was real and whether they might be going insane. But that doesn't really seem to happen here. Everybody's reaction to something that by rights ought to be world-shattering is really quite underwhelmed, comparatively anyway. Most of all Paul's wife, who doesn't doubt her husband's story in the slightest, and even starts giving him advice about it as though she were telling him how to ask his boss for a raise.

Of course I understand that the film wouldn't work if you had to show all of the characters reacting realistically and making a big fuss. There wouldn't be time, for one thing. But you'd think they could have reworked the story a bit. Maybe not have Paul tell his wife, for example. Anyway, it's a minor point and it shouldn't spoil this film for you by a long way. But it is the reason - probably the only reason - why I like Frank Darabont's other King adaptation, The Shawshank Redemption, a little bit better still.

Although I generally hold Steven Moffat in high regard - thanks in no small part to the brilliant "Sherlock" - this episode to me marked one too many Doctor Who stories resolved by something of the form: "humans showing a deep emotion is all-powerful". Don't get me wrong, I have no beef with a "love conquers all"-type ending; I wouldn't be watching Doctor Who if I did. My point is that I don't much like it when a big complicated crisis (typically the impending doom of humanity, planet Earth or even the entire universe) is literally and *directly* solved by something like "a mother's love", or "children crying", or everyone just wishing really hard. Why? Because it's cheating! It's lazy storytelling. It's a deus ex machina where even the deus is poorly worked out, and it means you don't get a satisfying return on your emotional investment in the plot.

So it is with this story. One gets the feeling that Moffat wasn't that interested in writing a plot for the episode to begin with. It seems like really all it was about for him was getting to the end, where we are introduced to the mystery that will presumably form the story arc for the next season. And then he hastily fills in the rest of the episode with some vague christmassy threat, only to dispel it all too easily and through very little involvement of the Doctor.

I don't want that, Mr. Moffat. I want you to care about individual episodes as well as about big, clever, season-spanning mysteries. But perhaps even more so, I would like the Doctor to be a hero again, for once. Not one of the swashbuckling, gun-slinging variety (hell no: I want specs, brains and quirkiness), but simply somebody who actually properly saves the bloody day, rather than wait until something sufficiently touching happens that automatically does the job for him. He's a Time Lord, for crying out loud!

Also, new console room: meh, Jenna Louise Coleman: meh. But I'm hoping to change my mind on those two counts.

Watching this film left me embarrassed for its creators. From beginning to end it feels forced and without any real desire to be witty. It's like everyone involved liked either the idea or the funding behind reviving Blackadder one last time, but none really felt dedicated to the project.

For starters, the editing, direction and camera-work are terrible. Some changes seem to have been made in order to make the whole thing more cinematic, but in fact it ends up looking more amateurish. Would that they had stuck with the style of the TV-series, which was fine and looked somehow more believable.

But all that could be forgiven in exchange for some good laughs. Unfortunately, that's where the final incarnation of Blackadder really fails to deliver. The dialog and performances feel tired, even from the great Rowan Atkinson himself. The familiar jabs at Baldrick are a mere shadow of the long-winding, whimsical but witty snides that they used to be. Tony Robinson in the role of the beloved dimwit servant is no more believable, having lost, as it seems, whatever it was that made him so beloved and dimwitted back in the day. And last but not least: the jokes. With the best will in the world, they are simply not good at all. They are obvious, dumb and boring and of a caliber I would really only expect from shows that were neither on television nor being paid for.

As someone who loved the TV-series, let me urge you not to watch this. As far as I'm concerned, Blackadder ended in slow-motion, followed by a fade to poppies.

The BBC's modern-day adaption of Arthur Conan Doyle's original Sherlock Holmes stories is an absolute breath of fresh air - not to mention one of relief. Equipping Holmes with a smart-phone and laptop could so easily have led to a tedious, unimaginative result, slapping itself on its back with easy jibes at our modern times. Instead, it's become a sleek, exciting and, above all, extremely clever piece of television. You get sucked into the mind of the genius, beautifully visualized through bits of text and numbers appearing around everything that he sees. In general the cinematography is pitch-perfect with lots of eye- candy but none of the over-wrought kitschy effects you might encounter in other, less carefully produced shows. But all this fades into insignificance next to the simply brilliant writing. It is no small thing to stand on the shoulders of Conan Doyle and hold your balance, but I do believe Moffat and Gatiss have pulled it off, at times even rising above the old master.

I don't know if the recent movie adaptations are any good, but I don't think I'm going to try them. After watching this adaptation, there is just no need. When films and television came about, an empty spot was created for the perfect Homes adaptation. This is one is it, and there can be no other. Go watch it.

While the return of an old Who-villain didn't quite work in last week's "Victory of the Daleks", the comeback of the Weeping Angels in this episode is brilliant. First introduced in the season 3 episode "Blink", the Angels again warrant a tantalizing 40 minutes, firmly reasserting their position as the most terrifying creatures of the revived series. Being the first half of a two-parter, it is too early to tell if the plot will match Blink's delightful ingenuity, but it certainly had me on the edge of my seat again for the whole length of the episode.

Another return is that of River Song, the Doctor's future wife, first seen in season 4's "Silence in the Library", and another of Steven Moffat's brainchilds. It seems Moffat has a fondness for strong sassy female characters. In itself there is nothing wrong with this, but the combined forces of River and companion Amy Pond do have the potential to become something of an overdose. Overall River's presence is interesting for the greater story of the Doctor, with some plot revelations hinted at (perhaps for the second part) but as a character she doesn't add much to the episode, especially with Amy already filling the role of the feisty female. This never actually becomes disturbing, however, with every minute filled with action and suspense that will make your heart race like any classic Doctor Who episode, which is what The Time of Angels is.

There is really only one thing wrong with this movie. If this were a minor thing, I would have given it 10 stars anyway. Unfortunately, it isn't minor at all: it's the story.

I guess the root of the problem is in the original story by Caroll. A classic, to be sure, and a delight to read, but it lacks a strong plot. It is ultimately just an erratic sequence of amusing events. And of course that's the whole point. The randomness is what people enjoy about Alice in Wonderland.

Tim Burton's movie, however, tries to insert a plot through the introduction of an ultimate goal for Alice which is revealed quite early on. But a true plot never emerges. Sure, Alice has to run away several times and makes a narrow escape once, but there is never any real tension; any "rising action" or conflict. At the same time, because of the time constraints a movie inevitably faces, there is very little occasion for the humour and wit found in the books. What results is a tepid middle-road which is not quite adventure, not quite fantasy, not quite "literary nonsense". Not really boring either, but certainly not very exciting. With, as a semi-climax, a battle of which the outcome is known in advance.

A lot is made up for by the visual spectacle and the all-star cast, although the lack of a good script gives them and their characters little opportunity to shine. There are a few laughs to be had and all in all it's pretty good fun to watch. And perhaps a lot of the disappointment comes from the expectations set so high by the director, the original and the promising names of Depp, Fry, Rickman, etc. Still, Alice in Wonderland is not what it could have been, not what it should have been.

Whenever I hear of a new Dutch sit com, I really, honestly, genuinely want it to be good. We have good actors, we must have good writers and it's not like Dutch series in general are of bad quality. So the potential is there. But somehow whenever we try to make a sit com, safe for a few rare exceptions (some episodes of "Oppassen" or "Het zonnetje in huis" maybe), it doesn't work. There is always a certain forcedness about it, maybe because the urge to defy the pre-conceptions that exist amongst the audience is so powerful. But most of all, it just isn't funny.

Kinderen geen bezwaar, unfortunately, is no exception to this rule. I tried to give it a chance, but it is just painful to watch. The dialogue is artificial and often badly delivered. The jokes make me cringe more often than smile. I don't remember laughing out loud once, or in fact any response beyond a slight curl of the lips. And this is supposed to be comedy. Perhaps the only thing humorous about Kinderen geen bezwaar is the irony that it is in fact less funny than most regular drama series.

I sat down for this movie pretty much without expectations. Never having read the book or even heard of it, I was in the audience because I thought the trailer wasn't bad and because my girlfriend really wanted to see it.

From the little I had heard, I thought I was going to be watching a classic children's story. Fantastic, and a little bit quirky. But as the film progressed, I added the adjectives "gritty", "indie", and finally, "dark" to the list. I left the cinema disconcerted and not quite able to make up my mind about it.

My problem with this film is it doesn't seem to be able to make up its mind about what it actually wants to be. For a children's movie, I think it is too incoherent, and even disturbing. Don't get me wrong, I think children on the whole are very capable of handling "grown-up" themes and frightening or saddening images, and indeed such elements can make the difference between an entertaining children's movie and a classic. For this to work, however, you also need to provide the child with a safe framework, and this is what is lacking in Where the Wild Thing Are. Just about everything which could give the viewer (child or adult) a handle on what is going on, is left uncertain. Most importantly, there doesn't seem to be a story, a point to it all.

Most of these elements would make for a great indie cult classic in a film aimed at adults - and I get the impression that this is the age group among which it has been appreciated most. However, it is marketed as a "family" film, and this I don't think it is. If you watch it with your children, prepare for them to be weirded out, frightened, upset and even bored. And don't do it to instill good taste in them either. Better then to leave them at home with a book (might I suggest, Roald Dahl?) and go watch Donnie Darko with some friends, to the greater satisfaction of both parties.