Reviews

This is a film made and set in 1968. However, Malmo wasn't, evidently, like New York or London apparently were at the tail end of the loved up a. In fact it looks to be more like the late '60s were here in Hull.

You'd think that because of this ,and the the fact that I was at school around the same age as the kids in this film, would be a major reason I relate to it.

I do relate to the film on those terms but anyone can immerse themselves in this film. It is a slow burner that builds up the predicament of the main character and of his school charges. This means the impact is not a quick hit but lingers long after the film concludes.

Its narrative and observations are as relevant today as it was 55 years ago. The story tells of the the plight of a teacher in the wrong profession is as much a tragedy now as it was then. Maybe with mobile phones and other technology the ways that pupils can undermine a teacher and get under their skin has changed but this film with an excellent lead in Per Oscarsson highlights the predicament without it becoming sensational.

The IMDB blurb states 'A weak and tormented teacher is pushed to the limit by his obnoxious students.' That suggests more than actually happens. The teacher is by no means strong. Life and his career have worn down his fight. Meanwhile the kids are a usual group who take advantage when the smell their chance.

The fact that this makes the film true to life and the acting of Oscarsson make this both believable and watchable. With slight changes to his expressions and some well acted nervous twitches Oscarsson reveals his character subtly.

.Mention must also be made of the direction and the kids playing the pupils. I was thinking as I watched that the classroom scenes are so natural they were probably filmed in with a real class with selected thespians but I can find no confirmation of that so either the director caught the best of the ensemble or the group of kids were so naturally natural in front of the cameras.

It is a very affecting film that does not resort to cliche, need sensationalism and certainly wouldn't be enhanced by modern technology.

I was attracted to 'Velvet Buzzsaw' partly because of Jake Gyllenhaal. I've enjoyed all of his films so thought I'd give this ago especially as it was written and directed by 'Nightcrawler' creator Dan Gilroy. It took me a while to get used to Gyllenhaal in this role. At first I thought his slightly effete, totally pretentious, portrayal was a bit too much stereotypical of a art critic.

Gyllenhaal's role is much like the film. It takes time to get used to but once you get used to flow and let it carry you iut somehow makes sense.

The film is ambitious in that it tries, unbelievably to be a sort of Altman style satire on the art world whilst also being a 'Destination' type modern horror where on of.leading characters is killed off one by one. In itself the film tries to be arty in its' style, design and language but then also entertain in a jump shock horror kind of way. This is seemingly an impossible coming together but 'Velvet Buzzsaw' just about makes it.

It helps that the cast is excellent and the characters a re real in a sense that they are caricatures but just the right side of being comic because of it but real rather than totally ridiculous. Ridiculous.

The film will probably divide opinion. I'm sure that those who are looking for a Altman type ensemble look at life in LA will end up unsatisfied and view the horror story as an unneeded irrelevance and those wanting blood and gore horror will think its characterisation and story try to be too clever. However, I liked it's aims and then once I'd decided to enjoy it I did just that in that I enjoyed it.

The case of the headless man is certainly an interesting scandal especially for the news media and very much so at the time it happened. However, to make it into a three part series it needed more than this offered.

All three episodes where very well made with fine performances, costumes and and locations. Unfortunately, neither of the main characters were likeable so you could not get behind or feel sorry for either. Both the Duchess and the Duke were spoilt and moneyed liars and could have easily been made into comic caricatures.

All this meant that over three hours the narrative had to get behind this. It had to be revealing. Unfortunately, it wasn't. I already knew a little of the case and therefore would have liked to have some modern and new intimations about the main questions arising from the trial such as who might the headless man have been, were there other such photos or was this the only man she got before the camera and if so why him? Also, what did 'V' actually stand for.

With regards The Duke we never found out whether he did have an affair with his mother-in-law or anyone else.

Unlike the previous 'A Very British Scandal' about the Jeremy Thorpe / Norman Scott trial which did answer the majority of the questions this didn't and wasn't enough of a story to keep the interest for 3 hours.

The first Conjuring film had genuine jump shocks are was often scary. Conjuring 2 is no different but is also a lot more unbelievable ludicrous especially the ending when the main male protagonist, with a child in his arms and hanging out of a window is easily, at the last moment, just before they both fall to their death is dragged back through the second floor window by his wife who only needs one hand.

Conjuring 2 also features a schmaltzy version of 'Can't Help Falling In Love' complete with Christmas tree backdrop and children as backing vocals.

Luckily, as mentioned, the film has it's fair share of scares and these are approached and executed well.

This latter might just have been enough to counteract the first criticisms if it wasn't for the fact that whoever decided that the film would feature a haunting in England didn't do their research. The family of the mother and five children live in a terraced house which featured from the outside looks a little too expensive for a woman on her own who can't even afford biscuits. Worse, the interior of the house looks nothing like a English terrace house of the 70s. It is too big, has too many rooms and just because the wallpaper is falling off the walls doesn't mean it belongs to a poor English family.

Then there's the factual bits. No female teenagers would still have Bay City Roller posters on their bedroom walls in '77. The Rollers were teenage rages in 74/75. As well as this The Goodies would not have been shown on weekday daytime telly and similarly a Margaret Thatcher dinner speech would not have been shown on daytime telly in that year. She didn't become PM until '79 so that would not even have been a news feature.

There is a lot wrong with Conjuring 2 yet it still has its moments and is worth a watch if you are prepared to suspend belief.

A rather pedestrian episode that never really went anywhere and, unfortunately, whereas some of the weaker films in the series were improved by fine performances there wasn't any stand out characters to gave the story a lift.

Not that Robert Powell was ineffective in the role as the delusional obsessive or that Jennie Linden didn't bring the small scale, small screen, star she played to life but both were wasted in roles that had little more depth than the descriptions I've just given them.

So, not one of the best and certainly the worst of season three so far and also the worst ending which features a cheap rickety set and a death scene from Powell that was somehow both over dramatic and boring.

An intriguing episode which as allows with Spooks wraps fiction around real events but in this case rather than a general event this was about a singular and specific happening: the death of princess Diana. In that respect it would at first appear quite outrageous but in fact the episode speculates on the cause of the crash and includes many conspiracy theory but comes to accept that it is most likely a pure and unfortunate accident.

The fact that the whole thing is inspired by an ex super Spook wanting to clear the name of her boyfriend (a body guard for Diana) by breaking into MI5 headquarters to get them to investigate and then in turn trying to blow up the queen was totally crazy but still interesting and good viewing as the cast play it straight and believably so.

There is a great performance by Lindsay Duncan as the ex Spook. It is a great character and Duncan acts it so well that it is a pity she hadn't appeared in the series previously in the role before she went rogue.

I could have done without another last second diffusing of another explosive device and the rooftop shooting in the final two minutes but another watchable episode.

This was a relatively gentle story concerning a Russian Oligarch trying to buy the NHS and featuring a dialectic about the greater threat of old or new Russia. It is underscored by the mental health of an Adam grieving over Fiona.

All this is interesting but there's not much of a real story involved and therefore is less engrossing than previous episodes.

There's a few minor points concerning plausibility but the story flows and the characters especially George Baker as the now aged former communist spy.

This is essentially a simple story that is complicated by convoluted Fiona's convoluted past shown in a back story. However, once again, despite reservations about the reality it makes for gripping viewing and has the kind of dramatic ending that Spooks has always been able to provide although on this occasion the death of a lead actor could have been guessed at due this series introduction of another female lead and the numerous times that Adam and Fiona's happy home life with their young son was shown. Either the son was going to get kidnapped or one of the parents was going to meet with tragedy.

Another well plotted Spooks suspense thriller. Again some of the narrative details don't stand up to close inspection (Adam as a Syrian refugee? Putting suspects together for interrogation?) but the the build up and the drama worked well and kept me as the viewer wondering what next. It kept me entertained, anyway.

Undoubtedly, 'Spooks' was at its best for the first two series. Not only was there a freshness to the narratives detailing the process of foiling subversion but, each week, brought into focus the character and personal lives of the people battling against the nations enemies.

In this way we came to know the strengths and weaknesses, and understand the foibles of Tom (Matthew MacFadyen), Zoe (Keeley Hawes), Tessa (Jenny Agutter) and Danny (David Oyelowo). All these were real believable people with there own problems. They were also all superbly played by actors who have gone on to be bigger names than they were at the time.

However, one by one they departed until by series 4 all the above had left and with them it seemed went most of the intimacy we felt for individual Spooks. There was an attempt to bring in a husband and wife team which worked ok but wasn't the essential viewing that the relationship between Danny and Zoe had provided.

By this series it seemed that the producers had decided to sacrifice the character detail for a more all action, thrills and spills, style show that appealed to the new international buyers of the episodes. Not a good move in that what had made 'Spooks' different from the rest was it's views into the everyday lives of the operatives.

However, this two part, two hour, opening to the fourth season I have to admit was was exciting, gripping and obviously big budget. It was, in fact, probably. Better than the majority of the episodes in Series 3. If you do like your drama to be nail biting and filled with edge of the seat action then this is for you.

'The Special' It is as good as many of the big movie American films of the same genre. Unfortunately, it also had the same propensity to be a bit slapdash in its plausibility and a big hackneyed in it's telling.

Wow! It wasn't one of The British Spooks who was the traitor it was the American none of us liked anyway. Blimey! There's a bomb set to go off and it get stopped with a password with just 2 seconds to go! Wham! The sozzled, opinionated, old, academic is left to wrangle that password from the bomber! He does so just in time but why are the specially trained agents in Britian and America leaving it to a man like that.

To be honest, in the first two series, I think the makers would have at least left Tash (Martine McCutcheon) to be blown up. A much sadder ending that may of alienated many of 'Spooks' new audience but in reality it was what most likely would have happened.

Most of the edge of the seats viewers will have thought all this fantastic and again I will have to admit that I was gripped by the action that thankfully had a great script and the basis of a meaningful story. It was just that compared to early 'Spooks' it seemed a little bit empty.