It is like sitting in a pub, quietly, surreptitiously listening to two old friends reminiscing and talking nonsense.
The "script", music and photography are truly magnificent.
Long may it continue.
Reviews
10 Reviews
Mr. Robot
(2015–2019)
As the wife said - started out great, then disappointed.
20 August 2015
9.1 rating on IMDb? Really?
This show's pilot was very, very good.
The acting throughout has been good. The production has been excellent.
Unfortunately the story lost it's way after about episode 4. That is the writers and directors fault. It has quickly become as tedious as the second series of True Detective (Don't start me on that - I could follow the plot(just). But it was very, very dull in comparison to the excellent first series.)
The 9.1 rating must be taking into account the people who voted(on the whole series) after watching one or two episodes. Its OK but we are rating this show alongside the Wire, Sopranos, House of Cards, Dexter, Justified and Boardwalk Empire. And they're just the American dramas!
This review has admittedly turned into a moan about the IMDb ratings and not the actual show. Sorry about that but I do, in some part, plan my TV and movie viewing around the reviews on this site. That's the whole point isn't it? People shouldn't be voting on TV SERIES/SEASONS until they are a good way into the finished product
The show is OK to good. Definitely worth a look.
But 9.1 ????
This show's pilot was very, very good.
The acting throughout has been good. The production has been excellent.
Unfortunately the story lost it's way after about episode 4. That is the writers and directors fault. It has quickly become as tedious as the second series of True Detective (Don't start me on that - I could follow the plot(just). But it was very, very dull in comparison to the excellent first series.)
The 9.1 rating must be taking into account the people who voted(on the whole series) after watching one or two episodes. Its OK but we are rating this show alongside the Wire, Sopranos, House of Cards, Dexter, Justified and Boardwalk Empire. And they're just the American dramas!
This review has admittedly turned into a moan about the IMDb ratings and not the actual show. Sorry about that but I do, in some part, plan my TV and movie viewing around the reviews on this site. That's the whole point isn't it? People shouldn't be voting on TV SERIES/SEASONS until they are a good way into the finished product
The show is OK to good. Definitely worth a look.
But 9.1 ????
Car Share
(2015–2020)
Best since the rising of the Phoenix
7 May 2015
The best comedy on British TV for years. Peter Kay at his best - likable, subtle and very, very funny. You need to watch the episodes a few times to catch all the background humour from the radio station and off shot signs etc "Husband Missing. Last seen entering....." "Brillington College ......"
A comedy that slowly turned into a love story that will surely be recommissioned sooner rather than later.
Mr Kay was predictably good and Sian Gibson was more than a match.
For a change the Beeb didn't let a new comedy stew for a series or two on BBC 3 or 4.
Superb. Can't wait for more.
A comedy that slowly turned into a love story that will surely be recommissioned sooner rather than later.
Mr Kay was predictably good and Sian Gibson was more than a match.
For a change the Beeb didn't let a new comedy stew for a series or two on BBC 3 or 4.
Superb. Can't wait for more.
Elementary
(2012–2019)
Not merely a lemon entry.
30 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I've watched this show from the beginning. With the most recent series (season, to our American friends) it really is becoming something rather special. The introduction and now, I'm sad to say, perhaps loss of Ophelia Lovibond, was inspired.
Elementary is not Sherlock of the BBC, but it does not portend to be. Jonny Lee Miller is quite superb in his portrayal of Holmes. Whether this is wholly down to him or the writers I have no idea. The latest episode (S03E12) really was TV at its best. It has reaffirmed my belief that this programme deserves praise it probably won't receive. The reason? Sherlock is widely regarded as excellent on both sides of the Pond. However, it has limited runs of "specials". It is therefore easier to produce something "special" and not something that merely wanders into the ether.
Because of the sheer number of Elementary episodes produced to feed the target American audience, it is far more difficult to build a show that can be perceived as something different and indeed "special".
Miller is doing as admiral a job as Cumberbatch, if not more so, but in his own style. Also, as much as I like Lucy Liu, she's no Martin Freeman, who only makes Cumberbatch's job easier and adds to the Sherlock aura.
It is a shame the character's potential is only just beginning to shine as I fear many an audience has already been lost.
Elementary is not Sherlock of the BBC, but it does not portend to be. Jonny Lee Miller is quite superb in his portrayal of Holmes. Whether this is wholly down to him or the writers I have no idea. The latest episode (S03E12) really was TV at its best. It has reaffirmed my belief that this programme deserves praise it probably won't receive. The reason? Sherlock is widely regarded as excellent on both sides of the Pond. However, it has limited runs of "specials". It is therefore easier to produce something "special" and not something that merely wanders into the ether.
Because of the sheer number of Elementary episodes produced to feed the target American audience, it is far more difficult to build a show that can be perceived as something different and indeed "special".
Miller is doing as admiral a job as Cumberbatch, if not more so, but in his own style. Also, as much as I like Lucy Liu, she's no Martin Freeman, who only makes Cumberbatch's job easier and adds to the Sherlock aura.
It is a shame the character's potential is only just beginning to shine as I fear many an audience has already been lost.
Religulous
(2008)
I "belieive" this to be the one and only great documentary
4 December 2014
Spoiler - I'm an atheist.
This film's biggest achievement is to show that Believers of all religions only see the positive aspects of THEIR faith for themselves, and just as easily dismiss all atrocities and contradictions as misunderstandings, politics, and propaganda.
If you are of a "faith" I suggest you perhaps watch this film with eyes wide open. Yes that's an atheist suggesting you look into something, rather than the other way around for a change.
"Religulous" does not set out to destroy a dominant religion - it destroys (in a very simplistic way) them all. Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Mormons, Scientologists et al. All get the same treatment. I don't know of Maher. Never even heard of him. But after watching this film, would love to see more "Moore" stuff from him. The wit makes what could easily have become a dull, anti-faith rant a very funny, (admittedly, not thought provoking) enjoyable documentary.
"This is the Mount of Olives. A lot of Orthodox Jews want to be buried here. Because they believe that when the Messiah comes, he will raise them from the dead and march them through that Golden Gate and on to the Temple Mount. Which is why the Muslims have walled up the Gate. The better to keep out the Jewish Messiah and his kosher zombies from getting in. Although you'd think that if you had the power to raise the dead...you'd have the power to jump a fence." Very funny.
The film jumps around a number of countries and continents, precis thousands of years of religious history and still manages to produce an extremely entertaining collection of interviews and segments in which people of different faiths all make an idiot of themselves. From any of them, there is no doubt, tolerance, accountability, guilt or shame.
One message comes across loud and clear - whatever the belief - the Believer is innocent and righteous.
This film's biggest achievement is to show that Believers of all religions only see the positive aspects of THEIR faith for themselves, and just as easily dismiss all atrocities and contradictions as misunderstandings, politics, and propaganda.
If you are of a "faith" I suggest you perhaps watch this film with eyes wide open. Yes that's an atheist suggesting you look into something, rather than the other way around for a change.
"Religulous" does not set out to destroy a dominant religion - it destroys (in a very simplistic way) them all. Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Mormons, Scientologists et al. All get the same treatment. I don't know of Maher. Never even heard of him. But after watching this film, would love to see more "Moore" stuff from him. The wit makes what could easily have become a dull, anti-faith rant a very funny, (admittedly, not thought provoking) enjoyable documentary.
"This is the Mount of Olives. A lot of Orthodox Jews want to be buried here. Because they believe that when the Messiah comes, he will raise them from the dead and march them through that Golden Gate and on to the Temple Mount. Which is why the Muslims have walled up the Gate. The better to keep out the Jewish Messiah and his kosher zombies from getting in. Although you'd think that if you had the power to raise the dead...you'd have the power to jump a fence." Very funny.
The film jumps around a number of countries and continents, precis thousands of years of religious history and still manages to produce an extremely entertaining collection of interviews and segments in which people of different faiths all make an idiot of themselves. From any of them, there is no doubt, tolerance, accountability, guilt or shame.
One message comes across loud and clear - whatever the belief - the Believer is innocent and righteous.
Derek
(2012–2014)
Original. Touching. Superb
21 May 2014
The first series of Derek was very good. The second series has been nothing short of brilliant.
Derek is clearly someone Gervais relates to. The learning-disabled fella has been with him since before The Office made him all his money and fame.
The programme manages to be heart warming, cringe worthy, funny and sad, but perhaps it's cleverest trick is that whilst I'm fully aware it's a mockumentary, I want to believe it's real!
Kerry Godliman is sublime as Hannah. Gervais' performance in the title role is simply superb. He has had a monumental amount of stick in the British press, not only for the subject matter but also his acting. Personally I can't see how any other actor could improve on what he is doing.
I really find it difficult to compare this programme with anything else on the box. Is it a comedy? Is it Gervais trying to put across a message about our treatment of the elderly and disabled? Is it too mushy?
I've just watched the London Zoo episode of series 2 and I really was in tears at the end. Not from laughter but really touched by how the subject matter was treated. No spoilers but it was truly heart breaking.
It is very brave of Gervais to create a character like Derek and he's received unjustified bad press by critics who prefer to appear to be politically correct before passing judgement on merit.
If you haven't seen Derek give it a whirl but try to watch a whole season at least. The characters grow on you and you grow to luv em. Well, I did anyway.
Derek is clearly someone Gervais relates to. The learning-disabled fella has been with him since before The Office made him all his money and fame.
The programme manages to be heart warming, cringe worthy, funny and sad, but perhaps it's cleverest trick is that whilst I'm fully aware it's a mockumentary, I want to believe it's real!
Kerry Godliman is sublime as Hannah. Gervais' performance in the title role is simply superb. He has had a monumental amount of stick in the British press, not only for the subject matter but also his acting. Personally I can't see how any other actor could improve on what he is doing.
I really find it difficult to compare this programme with anything else on the box. Is it a comedy? Is it Gervais trying to put across a message about our treatment of the elderly and disabled? Is it too mushy?
I've just watched the London Zoo episode of series 2 and I really was in tears at the end. Not from laughter but really touched by how the subject matter was treated. No spoilers but it was truly heart breaking.
It is very brave of Gervais to create a character like Derek and he's received unjustified bad press by critics who prefer to appear to be politically correct before passing judgement on merit.
If you haven't seen Derek give it a whirl but try to watch a whole season at least. The characters grow on you and you grow to luv em. Well, I did anyway.
Favor
(2013)
Could have been a blockbuster?
15 May 2014
I honestly don't know what to make of this film.
I think if it had two major stars as the main characters and a great director it could have been an Oscar winner. It really wanted to be good but in the end failed.
The problem is, I'm not entirely sure where it failed.
I think it was the acting. There again, it may have been the direction. I don't know, so it was probably both.
Great idea and I found that I really,really,really wanted to enjoy it but in the end, just felt deflated.
Having said that if they'd put say George Clooney and Brad Pitt in as the leads and Tarantino or Fincher directing, I'm sure I'd have loved it.
Just shows how shallow I am, but I bet 100 to 1, most who watch will secretly agree. Worth the watch though!
I think if it had two major stars as the main characters and a great director it could have been an Oscar winner. It really wanted to be good but in the end failed.
The problem is, I'm not entirely sure where it failed.
I think it was the acting. There again, it may have been the direction. I don't know, so it was probably both.
Great idea and I found that I really,really,really wanted to enjoy it but in the end, just felt deflated.
Having said that if they'd put say George Clooney and Brad Pitt in as the leads and Tarantino or Fincher directing, I'm sure I'd have loved it.
Just shows how shallow I am, but I bet 100 to 1, most who watch will secretly agree. Worth the watch though!
Rage
(2014)
I'm sure there are better ways to spend money
28 April 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Despite the large amount of bum films Cage has made I really do like him. His recent Joe and The Frozen Ground were both good films and he was polished in both. Other than an easy pay cheque (which I wouldn't blame him for)I just don't see how he can so often pick crap like this. I honestly don't think I've seen a worse film since Yogi Bear (my kids insisted on that by the way). When his daughter is found dead, I thought "oh, it's not just a "Taken" re-hash" and it wasn't. I wish it was. I got to 36 minutes and couldn't take any more. Fair do's to Cage. He gives away millions to charities, which is probably how he can justify turning out drivel like this.
Snowpiercer
(2013)
The Polar Express on Crack
24 March 2014
The "apocalypse caused by man" genre is very long in the tooth but this film is very different than those offered by Hollywood.
I can safely presume the majority of the budget wasn't blown on CGI which is both to the film's detriment and credit. It is an action film at the end of the day and expensive CGI is ultimately now a major focus of the genre. To the director's credit though he tries, in part successfully, to detract from it
In summary:
1. Tilda Swinton steals the show but I'm sure she was impersonating Maxine Peake (Silks, The Village)
2. John Hurt played his limited part well.
3. Main hero, Chris Evans always sounded like a USA dubbed voice from a Manga film.
4. Fight scenes gorgeously vicious
5. The fish? Surreal. Bit like a Terry Gillian film
6. I dare anyone to deny that the axemen in the first major fight scene did not remind them of Gru's Minions in Despicable Me.
7. The fight scene in the sauna carriage is truly horrific in its bluntness.
This film won't be a big box office hit but will quickly become a cult classic. I did enjoy it but it seemed to lose focus about 2/3 of the way through and never really pulled itself back to the pace set at the outset. A good effort by the director to enter the main stream market but in doing so lost the quirky humour of his previous outings, namely The Host and Memories of Murder.
I can safely presume the majority of the budget wasn't blown on CGI which is both to the film's detriment and credit. It is an action film at the end of the day and expensive CGI is ultimately now a major focus of the genre. To the director's credit though he tries, in part successfully, to detract from it
In summary:
1. Tilda Swinton steals the show but I'm sure she was impersonating Maxine Peake (Silks, The Village)
2. John Hurt played his limited part well.
3. Main hero, Chris Evans always sounded like a USA dubbed voice from a Manga film.
4. Fight scenes gorgeously vicious
5. The fish? Surreal. Bit like a Terry Gillian film
6. I dare anyone to deny that the axemen in the first major fight scene did not remind them of Gru's Minions in Despicable Me.
7. The fight scene in the sauna carriage is truly horrific in its bluntness.
This film won't be a big box office hit but will quickly become a cult classic. I did enjoy it but it seemed to lose focus about 2/3 of the way through and never really pulled itself back to the pace set at the outset. A good effort by the director to enter the main stream market but in doing so lost the quirky humour of his previous outings, namely The Host and Memories of Murder.
Oldboy
(2013)
Better than reviewed.
13 February 2014
I admit, I watched this film with half a mind on the original and hence it should have been doomed before the opening credits had rolled by. Reading various other reviews, the film was never going to be a hit with the so called "connoisieur" However, once I got over my own pomposity, I was pleasantly surprised and, admittedly with a nod to the original, don't think a much better job of a remake could have been managed.
The remake is not as good a film as the original. That out of the way - as a stand alone and to the viewer who does not know about the 2003 film, this is very good viewing.
The fight scenes were entertaining. Acting good. Good pace. Story good. Basically,nothing bad. I actually thought the photography better than the original. (I also liked the nod to the original's octopus).
In summary, if you have seen the original you are always going to be judging one against the other and Korea will win. Also dismiss me as a Philistine but I don't enjoy subtitled movies as much as English speaking ones. I don't have the intellect to understand every (or indeed any) foreign film without having to miss half the cinematography reading.
If you haven't seen the original, watch this. It is good. It's just that some critics have got there heads so far up their .............!
The remake is not as good a film as the original. That out of the way - as a stand alone and to the viewer who does not know about the 2003 film, this is very good viewing.
The fight scenes were entertaining. Acting good. Good pace. Story good. Basically,nothing bad. I actually thought the photography better than the original. (I also liked the nod to the original's octopus).
In summary, if you have seen the original you are always going to be judging one against the other and Korea will win. Also dismiss me as a Philistine but I don't enjoy subtitled movies as much as English speaking ones. I don't have the intellect to understand every (or indeed any) foreign film without having to miss half the cinematography reading.
If you haven't seen the original, watch this. It is good. It's just that some critics have got there heads so far up their .............!
Tell Your Friends