Reviews

Well these are my favourite books and the wait for an adaptation has been painful. And with something so good you really wanted it to come accross as well on the screen. And it almost does. The production values are good quality and the plot maintains its integrity even with bringing in Barak a book early. Shardlake is acted superbly, just how he should be - afflicted with his condition but a man of integrity and compassion (and a little steel). One mark off for the usual multicultural rubbish. Been said a million times and it didn't ruin it no, but anything that stops you being fully immersed in a programme is a negative. The one actual character of colour, Brother Guy is underused and Abbot Florian's whole vulnerability was from him being a patricial figure of high birth lost in the maelstrom of the dissolution of the monasteries, so the casting totally negated this no matter how well acted it was. Apart from that oh so common complaint it would have been a 10.

The initial low rating for this, 6.0, is quite perplexing. High quality drama with a real feeling of the absolute bleakness, randomness and inhumanity that existed in these camps. Yet showing human spirit and humanity amongst people treated as inhuman by their captors. Really well acted with every character having depth. I think enjoying it is probably the wrong word but it is quality tv Not quite a perfect 10, I did appreciate the value of moving beween ww2 and the present day but it was done a bit too frequently for me and disrupted the drama a bit. And old Lali had an accent which young Lali didnt..did he develop it in Australia?

Having just seen this truly astounding episode I took a look on IMBD to see the feedback. 7.9 at time of writing?? I mean the series (and it's a great series) is topping 9 so the low score for this truly beautifully crafted episode made me a bit sad deep in my soul.

I'm guessing there are a lot of people out there who felt short changed on the zombie/violence content this week. No doubt a large amount of low scores come from gamers unhappy that the concept of the game is somehow corrupted by this ( Now I kind of get how readers of books get annoyed if an adaptation goes off script but surely a video game adaption needs some fleshing out? It's like complaining Pirates of the Caribbean didn't stay faithful to the ride!) Sadly no doubt some who feel agendas are being pushed (plenty of examples in shows where this happens - this isn't one of them). Maybe some who felt it was a filler and out of place. I myself did wonder why the story had veered off from the main characters so abruptly. But then I realised how much context was being provided. How across the country individuals were surviving and just how long the human race had been broken. Its easy to show a catastrophe and then come back with a caption "20 years later" - this episode showed two men getting old together, isolated against a disintegrated society. And without spoilers it was done beautifully, as I said - it managed to transcend the show.

So so bad. Now the original was great and some of the sequels pretty good. But this one...

The bad - plot, acting, script, score, lack of suspense, complete stupidity of everyone (way past the usual dont open the door/go down the stairs stupidity) The good - the end credits, which had the original music score and also confirmed the movie had finished.

Next up Halloween Ends - well lets hope so.

While I'm still in S1, Das Boot has proved to be a slick, authentic and gripping WW2 drama.

Pacy and well directed hour long episodes, cleverly mixing at sea and back at base plots which help give the show real substance. And the dialect being a mixture of English, German and French makes it much more immersive. I mean it kind of makes sense a U Boat crew would talk in German to each other! And a real good set of character developments so that even the 'bad guys' come across as complex and individual.

Well worth a punt.

Downton has always mastered the art of creating characters we can identify with and care about against a backdrop of classy sets and costumes befitting a top period drama.

And suffice to say the film doesn't disappoint. It manages to pull together two seperate plots and a myriad of individual relationships into a format which doesn't seem too rushed or busy. And once again each individual character has their moment where good things happen - which is nice in a time like this. Comfort viewing, yes, but what is wrong with that?

And no spoilers, but what a powerful and moving way to end it all. I'd like to see another one but I reckon that's our lot!

Now I love Vikings, and generally any half decent film in this genre will get a viewing from me. And my wife said the trailer was great. So off I went to take a look.

Well it was brutal (it is about a viking blood feud after all), bleak (those damn Icelandic winters!) and long. Nothing too much wrong with that.

But also intermittently weird and mystic. In a way that interrupted the flow of the film badly. And for me at least affected my enjoyment- half the time it's regular viking mayhem, then half the time some arthouse pagan spiritualism. I kept waiting for the film to get going but it never did.

Then I realised that the director was the same guy who directed The Lighthouse and it all made sense. So I guess if you liked that you'll like this. If you didn't, you won't.

If you liked Vikings, this will not be the worst thing you will have chosen to watch. But you will be disappointed. The key ingredients in Vikings was the development of characters you cared about and a story that developed with them. Ok, Ragnar had a magnetism that is hard to replicate, but this ensemble is so two dimensional in comparison. Its not the actors fault, they are straight into a full on tear up with no character development at all. Just randomly selecting famous Vikings and shoehorning them into a story is annoying for anyone who has more than a passing interest in this era. Yes the original series took artistic licence but a lot of Ragnar Lothbrook is based in myth anyway. This period of history is far better documented so when you take liberies with chronology, ages and basic facts it is just annoying.

Silent Witness used to be the best crime drama on the telly. Gripping plot lines, sometimes a bit far fetched but always immersive. Characters you could root for. Great dynamics between the leads.

Now, not so much. The writing and even the acting this series has been so sub par. The plots generally making little, if no sense. And then this last episode. No real plot at all, people just running round in a thunderstorm, really boring unfortunately. Come on BBC, get some mojo back please.

While I recognise that people have different tastes and all that you would be best advised to ignore all the 1/10 reviews on here. Please leave baggage, politics (this film is not political - it's a social satire) and Star Wars at the door to the auditorium. Brilliantly acted by an A list cast, a humerous direction, a film that captures every little nuance. And a plot that develops wonderfully.

And remember that it's no good to fill a donut with a donut...

Firstly the film ticks lots of boxes- acting, costumes, direction all good with a decent budget. But why another film which changes history for no actual reason. The story of Henry V needs no surgery. Without trying to sound like a history snob, Henry was 27 when he acceded the throne not 17. He had reconciled with his father. He had 3 younger brothers (born 1386,1387,1389 and 1390) and as such great material for the complex relationships of family loyalty and personal ambition. Thomas of Clarence, a suicidally brave soldier did not pre-decease his father but died in 1421 well after Agincourt. Henry Percy 'Hotspur' was over 20 years older than Henry and was not killed by him...the Dauphin did not die at Agincourt...Henry V was a seasoned warrior with the claim to the French throne ingrained in him. He was not a pacifist in any sense, that was his son Henry VI - and that is a whole other story... Anyway off my high horse. A very watchable film for non history buffs!

Well Series 1 was fantastic with an ongoing plot that kept you hooked and rooting for Kirkman. Developments were far fetched but believable 10/10 Series 2 less gripping as they reverted to a different crisis per episode format. Hannah's role became less and less believable (FBI/CIA/Navy Seal?!?). But on the plus side some great new characters, good moments of humour and the underlying story about the mole is really good. 8/10 Series 3, two episodes in and it's still watchable but now no longer believable in the slightest. The election stuff is interesting but the rest... Hannah is now unrelated to the main story. Being British I found her trip to the 'UK' particularly irritating- ok dont film in the UK to keep costs down if you want but we no longer have red phone boxes anymore, and surely the licence plates on our cars aren't that hard to replicate properly! And the most annoying thing - writing out 5 main characters without a reference to them not being there. And there was I thinking Kirkman and his team were tight! 6/10