Reviews

Kenneth Branagh does it again. For many years the sniffy set of Guardian-types would turn up their Metropolitan noses at Agatha Christie. Her writing was, evidently, not high-brow, she churned out too many and (horror of horrors) she wrote airport thrillers.

But Christie understood human nature in its myriad forms and she wrote accordingly: at times with brilliance.

It is this which Kenneth Branagh so fabulously unveils in his Murder on the Orient Express. Yes, he has assembled a world class cast of superstar actors, but it's Branagh himself, both as actor and Director, who pulls the real meaning of this story out.

This is a tale of loss, sorry, unrequited grief and, above all, revenge. You don't get much more powerful emotions in human existence and these are wonderfully executed here.

It's fantastic, even if you know the plot. Go and see it and watch this wonderful tale again from a different perspective. Don't go just for light-hearted entertainment. It is that on one level. But it's also a tale which plumbs the depths of human existence: what Poirot calls 'the poison of deep grief.'

Fabulous film.

The film has one interesting idea: that time isn't linear.

Reaching that idea is a plod so slow that I almost left the cinema. Everything about it is dull: from the dreary cinematography under leaden skies and gloom, ghostly Death Eater aliens lost in fog, dialogue that's lost in mumble.

I almost enjoyed the clichés (America saves the world, the military are thickos) because at least they produced interest.

Did I mention the gloom? It's soooooo dull that you almost need a pair of night vision glasses to find some light.

The acting from Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner is good though and the finale is decent enough if rather obvious by that point: time isn't linear. Wow. Great. Never been done before.

If you want atmosphere in an alien encounter then ALIEN is in a completely different league to this. If you want alien mysticism, which is basically how the language is transferred, then The Abyss did it years ago in almost exactly the same way. And that's about it.

I so wanted this to be better.

Whoever described this as 'vapid' must have the emotional empathy of vapour on Mars. This is a superb series, beautifully acted and filmed. What makes it so compelling is not just the warmth with which Jeffery Tambor plays the lead but the superb reactions and interactions of others. This includes not only his often selfish offspring but society at large. Whether it's the Ladies rest room or former business associates, these are all out of the trans locker.

Maura's emotional journey through this roller coaster of reactions is fabulously portrayed. But it's also the internal angst that comes both from the gender dysphoria and the handling of it which makes this take another leap.

In case anyone thinks this is going to be all heavy, it really isn't. One of the joys is that despite all these achingly serious interactions the drama plays out at a lively pace, full of humour and fun. It's a fabulous series which I highly recommend.

This is a terrific film but I do agree with the reviewer who said it's one of the best films they will never see twice. It's an epic: a remarkably compelling film as we follow Leo through his battle for survival to ultimate revenge. It's the sort of film they don't really make any more. But they just did.

There are some amusingly gory scenes. The bear attack is brilliantly done but the scene which out-ranked it for disgust was when he climbed inside the horse. Well, if it was life or death you would, wouldn't you?

The cinematography is just astonishing. Simple as that. It's stunning.

My only real criticism is that it's so hard to hear a lot of the words. The mumbling is on a level never before encountered.

There are two stand-out performances. Leo is, of course, brilliant. But so is Tom Hardy. It's difficult to choose between them for sheer brilliance.

I watched IV-VI recently and they're a wonderful trilogy. Sometimes it's best just to leave things as they are and not try to cash in. The best minute of the film is the final one.

This is a bit of a mess. The plot is pretty much all over the place and a re-hash of the other three (IV-VI). I'm too bored by what I saw to write a long review but, for instance, whereas in the previous ones it would take a long time and careful plotting to disable the defence shield, here it just happened. Lots of it was a pale shadow of the previous films e.g. Kylo Ren was a weak version of Vader and Supreme Leader Snoke was laughable compared to the brilliantly sinister Emperor of Return of the Jedi.

I found some of the acting to be a bit wooden and the dialogue slightly hammy. The new droid was great though.

I'm weary of even continuing with this review. The fizz has gone out of the drink. What a shame the first three films weren't just left as they stand: a brilliant trilogy. The rest is best forgotten.

Should Agatha Christie be taken entirely seriously? Probably not. Whether intentionally, or otherwise, a little humour relieves the body count.

This dramatisation decided to go full bore on gravitas, austerity and remoteness. It sort-of worked but the result was something lacking warmth. The cast was top notch, which carried the dramatisation but I found the three episodes to plod along from murder to murder. It was all a bit bleak.

I'm in a minority though, which is fine. Most people seem to have loved it.

What a wonderful, stylish, James Bond.

It's not flawless, but it oozes style and I loved it. Daniel Craig has made the role his own now, with gorgeous, sexy, panache oozing from every pore. What gave this another lovely twist was having bad-ass Ralph Fiennes alongside and two terrific performances from Ben Whishaw and the lovely, hot, Naomie Harris.

The action sequences were possibly thinner than sometimes the case, but very good nonetheless: I loved the opening helicopter scene. It had a lot to live up to though with Casino Royale and Skyfall for opening. There were a few too many moments when I thought 'oh no we're heading back to Quantum,' especially in the Tunisian desert, but it was reprieved.

As an overall plot it's also interesting. In this day and age you've got two basic choices. You either go with 1. All-knowing agents fighting other all-knowing baddies (Skyfall) or 2. Rogue agent against the all-knowing baddies (Bourne and Spectre). I think it worked quite well. There is, though, a third option which is to have an agent go after a smaller, but nonetheless powerful, evil person or organisation (Casino Royale and most previous Bonds). Since groups like IS operate on that basis, they don't control the world, there's no reason why that can't be a plot-line. Still, this is to speculate. What we have worked and it was full of delicious humour, which is the one, single, hallmark of the James Bond brand. He must have charm. Daniel Craig has, and in abundance.

As for Christoph Waltz: terrific. Not quite Mads Mikklesen who for me will never be bettered, but still a fabulous villain.

Where do I put this in the Craig canon? Easy. Below Casino Royale but above Skyfall (and obviously above the execrable Quantum). Skyfall had a shocking second half. This doesn't. It builds beautifully and stylishly throughout. Great film.

I'll declare my hand. Up until Season 5 Game of Thrones was comfortably the best thing I've ever seen on television. It had all the best ingredients. I would have reviewed all 4 seasons at, or very close to, 10.

Season 5 by contrast is a bitter disappointment and a marked deterioration in the brand. It's not just that it has become desperately slow moving, nor that so much of the first half is dialogue driven. It's also that the plot lines have become stultifying. Great characters have become bogged down in, frankly, very boring stories: examples being Arya, Tyrion, Daenerys and the dragons (who never seem to do anything). Even the wonderful Sansa has been sent to a backwater and, ironically, denuded Ramsey Bolton of much of his original interest. The two of them are stuck at Winterfell, which would never happen (Sansa's far too regal too have gone to the Boltons as GRR Martin knew full well). The intrigue which surrounded King's Landing has vanished in the face of really rather dull religious fanatics. So, for example, we've lost most of the wonderful Lannister-Tyrell friction. It's partly because we've lost the evil people with power such as Tywin, but it's not just that. The series has become that most awful of adjectives: bland.

A lot of this series comes across as shot hastily with poor scriptwriting and shoestring budgets. It's a bitter disappointment but a sign that perhaps Game of Thrones has had its day. I hope not because we're set for a grand finale, but the producers really need to get their act together and bring this back to form, and fast.

What a gem of a drama from the BBC. What makes this, and what it is at root all about, is a study of human nature, or rather natures.

The characters are beautifully drawn: subtle, complex and deep. Relationships are intricately woven and multi-faceted.

There is a delicious comedic element that only adds to the bite over real issues. The PCC meeting in episode 1 and the library scene in episode 2 will live long in the memory. Colin's comment about the Philosophy section and Kierkegaard was a moment of genius.

The tension between the village and the neighbouring estate is a microcosm of life that seems very pertinent in today's Britain. For 'estate people' read almost any group of undesirables that the established residents don't want. Many of the settings, for example the secondary school, could be straight from almost any comprehensive: yes some kids really do speak to teachers like that.

The Casual Vacancy is a fabulous drama which is all-too- rare these days.

Human nature painted for television. Superb.

Spoiler Alert

For those of you who remember Carl Sagan's Cosmos 35 years ago you may, like me, have guessed the plot at the beginning i.e. who was behind the bookcase: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPoGVP-wZv8&feature=youtu.be

That aside it's a good film with some excellent effects. Matthew McConaughey mumbles to the point where he was difficult to hear some of the time and the point at which he is accepted willy-nilly as a pilot for the waiting craft is painfully weak.

But apart from those quibbles it was all very decent film: sort of The Abyss meets Sixth Sense meets Gravity.

It's quite hard to get to the required 10 lines because this film is essentially fighting, then more fighting and then some fighting again.

There really isn't a lot of plot, and the central 'thing' which seems to drive it early on, namely the Arkenstone, vanishes half way through into the folds of Bard's tunic never again to re- emerge.

The CGI swamps most of the rest of it, in a way that reminds me of an exaggerated version of Die Another Day. You know? Silly in other words.

It's a big disappointment and a dribble-out finale for a great series which began on a peak with The Fellowship of the Ring. It's a shame because it's possible to close out a long series with something of breathtaking brilliance: look at the final Harry Potter.

I'm not sure that I agree with some people that this film is even better than the first, but that is rather like saying is Beethoven 'better' than Mozart: both are geniuses. There are two towering, brilliant, outstanding performances from Al Pacino and Robert de Niro. I cannot think of two greater performances on screen - and ironically they didn't meet!

They seemed to make movies differently once: this is about 'atmosphere'. And the atmosphere generated is truly astonishing. It's such a contrast to today's cinematography which has to ladle on the obvious because, one assumes, people are too stupid to follow. One can only laugh at the notion that Jackson's Rings trilogy could find its way into a comparative top 10 with the Godfather. The latter belongs to a universe of brilliance and sophistication that Jackson's work won't achieve even if he goes through 100 successive re-incarnations trying to get there.

(Spoiler alert)

I love the contrasting way in which Vito builds friends out of nothing, but by careful and adept people-working, whereas Michael starts out with a clan, and ends up staring in loneliness across the lake. Pacino develops this aspect quite superbly, as de Niro does the converse.

It's outstanding stuff. And the two taken together may never be matched.

I went to see ROTK for the 2nd time yesterday and aside from the myriad of minor flaws, want to concentrate on major issues surrounding Jackson's character development.

ARAGORN is the first big problem. In the book he is both a ranger from the north, but also a man destined to be king. He knows who he is, and he has an expectation of that destiny. Likewise in the book he has 'spiritual' awareness. Aragorn is descended, not merely from men, but from Numenor: so he already has in him some of the blood of the Elves. Now Jackson gives all foresight to the Elves - making the men merely, men. But the whole point is that the-man-born-to-be-king has the spiritual awareness of the great kings of old. Thus, in book II at the river it is Aragorn, not Legolas (as in Jackson's version), who is aware of a shadow growing in his heart. And, more significantly, it is Aragorn who in the book takes the palantir by his right (Gandalf actually bows to give it to him). Gandalf counsels him not to use it, but Aragorn knows who he is. So he looks in the palantir and shows Sauron the sword. He challenges Sauron, and then wrenches the palantir away from the Eye to use as HE wills, not as Sauron wills. In so doing he sees the black fleet, and so knows the threat. That's why he takes the path of the dead. And when he goes under the Dimholt he REALLY summons the dead. The exchange in the film between Aragorn and the Geoffrey-Rush-Pirates-of-the-Caribbean-look-alike ghost is feeble in the film. In the book Aragorn does not doubt who he is: he calls them, not barters with them.

Now Aragorn's action here is part of a much larger cohesion in Tolkien that is entirely absent in Jackson. As a result we're left with a desperately anti-climactic coronation. Why? There's simply been no character development of Aragorn. He's been denuded of a sense of who he is.

SAURON is the next big problem. It's true that in the book he is mostly referred to as the Eye. But he also has personality. In the film, apart from the opening sequence to film I (which was brilliant) all we have is a plasma lamp sometime searchlight. Since in the book Gandalf has told Frodo that 'Sauron is taking shape again' why on earth didn't Jackson then develop Sauron from the figure in film I? In the book, we are told of Sauron's gnawing doubt. We hear of reports about 'spies' entering Mordor. We know that he is consumed by fear of the upstart heir of Elendil. None of this is developed in the film. (And the Ring seems to lose power on entering Mordor, not gain it!) Result? There was no sense of elation at the fall of Barad'dur.

Now this is a serious theological error that I suspect Tolkien would have detested. Personify good, and you must also personify evil. Tolkien's epic was all about those forces being personified: and how you discern them. Sauron is a personification of evil. He's not actually the worst - that belongs to Morgoth (of whom the Balrog is a servant). Whilst Tolkien rightly loathed allegory, he nonetheless never would have countenanced such a weak and ineffectual portrayal of the enemy. The whole point, and if this isn't obvious in the world today then Jackson is even less astute than I imagined, is that evil in many guises takes human form.

OTHERS

The same lack of characterisation in Aragorn and Sauron goes on with many of the others. Notable exceptions are GANDALF and SARUMAN (both well acted). Jackson made a mistake in cutting Saruman out of III having made so much of him in I and II (more than the book). ARWEN is drippy throughout. EOWYN is changed in the film. Miranda Otto was excellent. But Jackson plays up the love between her and Aragorn so much that we are left wondering how Eowyn is apparently beatifically happy to see him with Arwen. On the subject of Eowyn it's such a shame Jackson didn't do the slaying of the witch-king better. In the book the battlefield pauses - a cloud goes up and everyone in Minas Tirith is happy. It's one of the truly great moments, lost by Jackson. The reports even leak back to the orcs in the tower above Shelob's lair so that Sam and Frodo hear that 'No.1. has been done in'.

As for the HOBBITS . I think this may be a question of preference. Personally I think Sean Astin's acting as SAM is execrable, but some like it. For me, the simple gardener becomes a mini-philosopher and I find his soliloquy both at the end of film II in Osgiliath (to which they never go in the book) and on the mountain (twice) truly toe-curlingly dreadful: pap I'm afraid. And, oh dear, we even veered towards Titanic-music-moments at the end of film I and again on the mountain. BILBO was fine until the end. Yes, we know he ages fast now he's lost the ring, but the Salieri-style prosthetics are poor. Jackson loves the slow-motion work so much that we have to endure some particularly dreadful sequences with the Hobbits (most notably the already infamous bed scene) and at the end (where I really thought Frodo was going to give Sam a full-on smacker!). A similarly tacky piece of directing occurs when the elves appear - the soft focus lens is deployed with 'celtic' singing. Argh - this is kindergarten film production.

I expect the film will garner the Oscars ceremony. But I hope some people in Tinsel town have the courage to acknowledge that whilst some of the visuals are outstanding (though many are not - e.g. the oliphaunt descent by Legolas, the Merrick-style leader of the orcs, and the Army of the dead), the film is not actually very good.

Peter - I'm afraid you've let us, and J.R.R. Tolkien, down.