Cinebuff38 Reviews

Men Up (2023 TV Movie)

Why was this made?

[1/10 · 5 April 2024]

I can imagine the writers of this sittng in a meeting wondering what they can produce as an excuse to show couples engaged in sexual activity. The outcome? Men up, A one off (Thank god) drama about the discovery of the drug called viagra. This break through may have been a game changer for many long suffering men, but as a drama it was about as relavent as news that churchill lost the election after the war. Had it concentrated more about the process of the discovery and less about the patiants, even if it were to have just cut out the bonking in the bedroom scenes, it might have worked better. But the writers were only interested in something that would show as much titilation as possible thus failing to produce something that would qualify as being something intelegent.

2023 ICC Cricket World Cup (2023– )

Very bad TV coverage

[1/10 · 27 October 2023]

My one star rating is for the TV coverage and not the actual game. In years gone by the coverage would consist of a match and would contain replays when appropriate. Now? There is several replays and vintage clips not just between the overs but between the balls as well. For example, one ball, maybe two, followed by replays of wickets, not only from the current match, but from matches of years ago. The result? Even the live play seems like it's made up of clips. I can understand showing replays relevant to a point in a match, but it contains far too many extras that can be shown pre or post match The coverage looks like it's done by a crew who think they are making a movie. For goodness sake just show the match! We don't need all these CGI type extras. They totally spoil the coverage. It's almost as bad as having a commercial break after each ball. I would go as far to say that the coverage of this world cup is among the worst ever.

The English (2022)

Awful

[1/10 · 3 March 2023]

There are 18 one star reviews on IMDB(19 if you count mine) of the English, which I have quickly skimmed through, and a question one should ask is how on earth did this get commissioned. I can only assume it's because it has Hugo Blicks name on it. I have watched all of Blicks previous BBC dramas, and while he is not known for painting by numbers, they were much more watchable if mostly a little complex. It is virtually impossible to give any kind of description of the story as there doesn't seem to have been one. Each episode consisted of actors performing sequences of dialogue, with each scene seemingly having to do nothing with the other. It was though the author took some kind of concoction, let himself loose on a key board, and hoped for the best. The result we have is that in my opinion, and to be fair, even with good photography, one of the worst TV dramas ever produced. The only description I can give is that it is a western, A genre they should never resurrect, yet they keep trying. There has been many great western films and TV series in the past, and we should revisit them rather than watch this. Shame on the BBC for broadcasting it, shame on Emily blunt for executively producing and appearing it, Shame on Blick for writing it. And as for any spoilers, Since I, nor probably anyone involved in the production have a clue as to what it was all about, that would be impossible!

Fastest Finger First (2022)

The other flaw

[1/10 · 2 September 2022]

I have just read spacemafia's review, and while I believe he is right in theory, my guess is that ITV have some kind of solution to that flaw.

Anyway, the flaw which I spotted, and the reason I have given it only one star is the unfairness of the format.

There are 5 contestants. The host ( Anita Rani) asks aquestion. The first to buzz in gets the chance to answer that and other questions till he or she gets to 12 or the claxon goes. Whichever comes first. Wouldn't it be fairer if it was an open buzzer system?

Tha winner of that round goes forward to the fastest finger first part using the same format as who wants to be a millionaire.

The problem is the same player can play that part over again and win the majority the rounds and have it taken away from them in the last one bysomeone who barely answered any questions. Probably a quiz show version of being mugged.

Surly it would be fairer to have just 2 rounds of open buzzer questions and and one round of fastest finger first with the 2 winners of the qestion rounds.

BUt no. ITV won't do that because then the show wouldn't be long enough, and they wouldn't get enough advertising. Basically, and I know tv channels need commercials to survive, I see adverts as an intrusion. I would't have such a problem with it if they spent it on improving their dramas.

As I have written elsewhere on this site, tv channels around the world show ads. Australia and The USA for example have ad breaks but produce high quality drama. Why can't the UK commercial channels do the same. Compare to BBC dramas, the dramas on UK commercila channels are waterd down.

ITV must spend a lot of money on shows such as the voice UK and epic gameshow and the masked singer which are quite good quality productions. So why can't they do the same with their dramas. Why?

It annoys me that they come up with good ideas and spoil them by really poor productions.

I hope some big boss at ITV and other UK commercils stations are reading this and finally do somethong about it, because they really believe their dramas are high quality. They are not.

Deidra & Laney Rob a Train (2017)

Hidden,yes. A gem? No.

[1/10 · 1 April 2022]

So this is the set up. At or near the beginning of the film, the mother of the protagonists (Deidra and Laney) is seen in the store where she works, is holding a TV above her head threatening to throw it on to the floor. She then throws said TV on to the floor, smashing it to pieces. Needless to say, she is sacked, prosecuted and ends up in jail hoping that someone can bail her out. This leaves Deidra and Laney without any means of financial support and parental guidance. So they come up with this bright idea. "Let's rob a train". So they do. So far, so far-fetched. And then there was a line said by a social worker which went something like: If you can't show financial support, then your sibling is gone". Really? I don' think any social worker would speak to someone like that, not without getting some kind of disciplinary action taken against them anyway. In fact the whole film plays out in the usual type of dialogue and demeanour for which American films are famous for.

We find out that one of the investigators is corrupt, though I didn't quite understand how.

The proceeds from the train robbery were used to bail their mother out. The corrupt officer was bought to book. The perpetrators however, were not.

This film was in the hidden gems section of Netflix who actually made the film. This is a message to their management: A gem can be a film from: Bergman, Kurosawa, or Varda for example. It doesn't always even have to be foreign films. There are plenty of English language films that are gems, even from America. But this is most certainly not one of them.

The Tournament (2021–2022)

Not good, BBC

[2/10 · 12 November 2021]

Going in, I would like to point out that this review has nothing to do with any aspect of the TV license. There are many people like that guy on you tube who is always whinging about the beeb(Yes, I'm talking about you. You know who you are) who believe BBC programmes are bad because they have to fork out £159 quid a year. That's like saying the room at the ritz was shabby, or the chocolate tasted horrible because of the high cost. I happen think that the presentation and production values of the BBC are of a high standard. I can't say the same of the commercial channels who make a lot more money than the BBC.

All that said, the BBC does on occasion make the odd programme which doesn't quite measure up to standards. The tournament (Weekday afternoons on BBC1) is one such programme. Hosted by former footballer Alex Scott, a row of contestants have to answer a series of questions to determine the pecking order of who plays who in the head-to-head in a series of questions from a chosen topic, with multiple choice answers. The idea is (Obviously) to answer as many on the buzzer questions as they can. A series of lines, one of them red, moves closer every time someone gives a wrong answer. The contestant who answers the most questions in two minutes, or avoids the red line goes through to the next round,(Sounds like a subtle rip off of the chase) which is the same format as the first round, which in turn, is strangely the same format as the final. Of course a financial award is up for grabs for the winner.

It's a shame that the BBC have got rid of good quality programmes like the voice UK and eggheads to save money in order to make new programmes, and then they make rubbish like this. Come on BBC, you are better than this. Other daytime quiz shows like Impossible, decimate and pointless for example are so much better. Don't give that guy on you tube the satisfaction.

Runners (1983)

Pay attention

[7/10 · 13 August 2021]

I have watched many dramas written by Stephen poliafoff, most of which I liked, the odd one or two I didn't. Runners is about a father searching for her daughter who goes missing shortly after riding off on her bycicle one morning.

There are some reviewers here who say her dissapearance wasn't explained. It was explained. Albeit it wasn't a painting by numbers expanation. Most story tellers arn't going to spoon feed us answers by all but having the actors look at the camera and say 'this is what happened folks' . Those of you who didn't get it, I suggest you watch the film again, or at least the last half hour or so and pay attention! It was recently shown on film four, and so should come round again. I'm not going to give any explanations here as I don't want to spoil it for anyone who has not seen it.

BBC Cardiff Singer of the World (2015 TV Special)

A gem of television broadcasting

[10/10 · 26 June 2021]

This competition started in 1983, and having watched from 2011, I am relatively a new viewer to this. After watching the recent one (2021), I felt I had to write and say what a masterpiece of a singing competion this is, with proper (Operatic) songs, intellegent analysis from guests from the world of classical music, excellent presenting from the BBCs top team of classical music presenters, a panel of judges which includes top people from different sections of classical music, plus(usually) winners from previous years.

One of the things I like about his competition is that like it's sister (Or perhaps cousin) competition, BBC young musician, also an excellent competition, the judges don't give coments to the competitors after their perfomance. And why should they. If you enter a singing competition, and you sing good, the public knows you sing good, the judges most certainly know you sing good, why should they comment? These shows like the X factor where the contestants sing songs that are forgotten five minuets after you hear them are all about the judges, who somehow manage to give a different screenplays worth of comments for each contestant, even though they have given tne same quality of performance.

Getting back to the competition i'm writing about, there were three winners this year. The song prize, the dame Joan Sutherland audience prize, and the main prize. All the contestants will(as others in the past have done) go on to have successful careers. All the contestants in the song prize section have all been guarenteed recitels at some point. You can't say that about the X factor.

I really enjoy these classica lmusic competitions, and I hope they continue for many years.

Moonlight (I) (2016)

Seriously?

[1/10 · 19 March 2021]

A few years or so ago, La la land was mistakenly named as winner of best picture at the Oscars. While La la land was far from the best film I've seen, compared to Moonlight, it was more likeable.

Having recently watched Moonlight, I am puzzled as to not only why or even how it won the oscar for best picture, -plus a few other Oscars- nor why or how it got nominated. The pivotal question must be why was this film even on the radar?

The story, (such as it is) in director Barry Jenkins film is divided into three parts.

Part one is entitled Chiron, in which the characters, using mainly street language, talk a load of nothing.

Part two is entitled Little, in which the characters, using mainly street language, talk a load of nothing.

Part three is entitled Black, in which the characters, well I think you know the rest.

Nowhere near enough depth was given to the story of two African-American youths who discover they are gay, and one whose mother is a drugs abuser.

In my opinion, this is, so far, the worst film ever made, even trumping under the skin, and other users who have read my review of that film will know exactly what I think about it. Yes, Moonlight really is that bad.

Tideland (2005)

Words fail me

[1/10 · 19 March 2021]

In an introduction to his film, Terry Gilliam says of Tideland: "Many of you are not going to like this film. Many of you are going to love it. And some of you won't know what to think". No! Really?! Surely that can be said of every film that has ever been made as they, and come to think of it all branches of the arts, are subjective. Gilliam goes on to say: "It's seen through the eyes of a child". Well, In the first instance, it is seen through the eyes of Mitch Cullin, the author of the novel Tideland, which is the third instalment of the Texas trilogy, and subsequently Gilliam, the film's director. The main protagonist is a little girl called Jeliza-Rose, (Played by Jodelle Ferland) who uses surreal imagination to live out her childhood in the wake of her parents who have social issues. As the film progresses, we see her interacting with characters from that imagination, which she also provides the voice for. Unfortunately, I'm one of the "many" who didn't like it. I hated it. I personally thought this is a very bad film. In fact, it is so bad, there are no words to describe how bad it is. Even with 7000 languages in the world, collectively containing goodness knows how many words, if there were other worlds somewhere in the universe that had several languages, that each contained thousands of words, there would still be no word to describe how bad this film is. If negative star ratings were available, that is minus instead of plus stars, and bearing in mind that numbers in both negative and positive are infinite in most cases, there would not be a negative number low enough. The very fact that this film exists is an insult to the entire movie world.

There is however one positive thing from this film. The art of film making is one which takes several years to master. Not anymore. You can now gather a large group of film students, and say making films is easy. Just show them Tideland, and then never mind learning how to make a movie, just don't make one like Tideland, and you can't go wrong.

Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again (2018)

Well, it is a sequel

[1/10 · 26 February 2021]

THis is a sequel to director phyllida Lloyd's film version of the ABBA songs inspired stage musical Mama mia! While that film left a lot to be desired, I liked it better than director Ol Parker's sequel Mama mia! Here we go again.

I really wanted to like it, but as the film progressed, I came to the conlusion that it was a poor film.

Sloppy story telling, no chemistry between the actors, the male actors couldn't sing, but to be fair the female ones could. People who had nothing to do with a given scene joining in the singing and dancing which I think is a weakness in any musical, very weak direction, it stood out a mile that Parker was struggling for ideas as to what the actors should do while performing the musicsl numbers. And as for the scene where all the passengers on an approaching ferry uninspiringly sang 'dancing queen', what the hell!?

It could be argued that ABBA is Sweden's answer to the Beatles, and that their songs are a masterpiece. It is therefore sad to see them used in this way.

I was thinking of saying that this is one of those films that are so bad it's good. But the reallity is it it's so bad that it's bad.

The Sinner (2017–2021)

Goes downhill

[1/10 · 4 January 2019]

Season 1 tells of Cora Tannetti (Played by Jessica Biel) who for no apparent reason cold bloodily murders young man on the beach. Someone of whom she had never met. Then the murder is investigated by Harry Ambrose (Played by Bill Pullman) A good premise for a drama. Sadly it all goes down hill after that. The problem I have is that the story was very sloppily told with too much focus on Ambrose. Why did they need to include Ambrose's personnel problems? And why so much sexual content concerning Ambrose? In my opinion, such scenes weaken a film or TV drama as they have little or nothing to do with any given plots. We all know what couples get up to in their bedroom so why producers need to include such scenes in dramas is totally beyond me. I can only guess that it is because they can. After all, this is the very permissive society. Tannatti was given a life sentence but I can't quite remember the minimum term. Anyway, the reason she committed the murder was revealed. What was it ? I haven't got a clue! in the end an appeal judge, strangely the same judge as in the original trial reduced her sentence and in doing so opened with the statement "It gives me great pleasure" as if it didn't matter that some poor bleeder got brutally stabbed to death. The writers came up with a good idea for a story and killed it, in much the same way that tannatti killed that poor young man. Yes I know it's only a story, but producers need to make a belter effort in its telling Lets hope season 2 is better.

Doctor Who (2005–2022)

Very disappointing

[1/10 · 7 December 2018]

If I were reviewing the first series of the reboot ( with Christopher Eccleston) I would have given it 10 stars. But it is the series featuring Jodie Whittaker which I would like to discuss. To be fair, the first episode deserves about 8 stars, but they should have stopped there. In fact they should have stopped after Christopher Ecclestone left.I would point out that I am a strong believer, albeit none active supporter of Women's rights and equality and therefore have no problem with the casting of a female in the lead. The issue I have is the companions. I am guessing that the writers weren't sure whether to include a female companion as has been the norm, or , as the doctor is now a woman, to have include a male. In my opinion a female would have still suited. But the producers decided on several companions. The result is supplying a script for several actors which in turn has resulted in a weak watered down scripts. This has given us a very flat and uninspiring series, which is a shame because the BBC is capable of much better. For the next series they might consider another actress, because I am not entirely sure Whittaker is a perfect fit, or go back to basics and cast a Male actor, because this is simply not working.

Juggernaut (1974)

Awful

[1/10 · 30 November 2018]

The plot is plausible enough. A former disgruntled bomb disposal agent turned terrorist plants a bomb on a cruise ship and demands half a million pounds in return for information on how to disarm it. However, the overall production is awful beyond belief. and this being directed by an American. Now personally I'm not a huge fan of American films but their productions are a lot better than British films. Anyway, I know nothing about recruitment for cruise ship staff, but one thing I am certain of certain of. In real life anyone like the crew portrayed in the film wouldn't even qualify for an application form. Another thing, any deck activities would surly not take place in bad weather. Nor would passengers sit out in it as they did in the film. This is one of the worst films I have ever seen. The whole thing was like a poor mans carry on film. In fact it should have been called carry on terrorist. In he end the bomb was rendered harmless. The bomb disposal agent decided to cut the red wire after being told it was the blue wire.There, I have well and truly spoilt it for you, now go and watch something more stimulating.

Maudie (2016)

Weak

[1/10 · 20 July 2018]

There are 2 types of film in the Canadian film industry. First there is French Canadian cinema which produces films in the French language (and some in the English language) and like its counter parts in Europe, Asia, etc., come up with engaging, excellent and in many cases masterpieces. Then there the one which is linked more to the American film industry and Hollywood which nowadays appear to produce a lot of trash. Maudie, Aisling Walsh's biopic of Canadian folk artist Maud Lewis, admittedly someone I had never heard of, pertains to the latter. Sally Hawkins was ok as the apparently humble Maud, while Ethan Hawk made a very good obnoxious Everett, but the entire film was very weak because none of the characters had much to say. There was nothing about what inspired Lewis, what makes her tick, in fact the whole film was totally devoid of any type of character study that should have featured in a work of this subject. To be honest, there was not anything much we haven't seen or heard in the average Hollywood fare. I fell that Director Walsh missed out on a great opportunity to make a poetic and philosophical movie. By using well-known actors instead of unfamiliar ones and exploring the subject instead of analysing it only goes to show that the producers were only interested in getting bums on seats, enticing people to go to the cinema believing they are getting a good film. They are not.

The Handmaid's Tale (2017–2025)

A story of religious thugs and their victims

[8/10 · 13 July 2018]

One has to wonder how a powerful army in the world's superpower that once upon a time managed to help defeat the might of the German army in Nazi Germany couldn't stop a bunch of religious morons from taking over the Whitehouse. A possible answer is that they were given a huge back hander to collaborate. But isn't how dictatorships operate? Isn't how these thugs manage to stay in power? Reading between the lines, that's what Author Margret Attwood imagines in her novel the handmaid's tale which has been adapted into this excellent TV series. Set in Gilead, the fictitious new name for America, Attwood has created a terrifying religious dictatorship where there is less freedom than in North Korea, where lower class women are enslaved to be raped in order to provide children for the infertile upper class. A society where the light of god shines through every window, as if to say God is everywhere and watching you, that you should be nice to everyone, even if they beat and rape you, even if they work you till your I are ill and fit to drop and even then they still work you and beat you , a society reminiscent of medieval times when kings ruled ( perhaps not so despotic )and killed in the name of god and actually believed they were chosen by god to rule. Where thugs in military type uniforms patrol within an inch of everyone's lives. I've not read the novel so I am only assuming that the transition from book to screen is a good one. Season one being adapted from the book, and season two being off book, this is a very good portrayal of what could happen if society doesn't make a stand and fight back against thuggish dictators. I always refer to despotic dictators as thugs because that's all they are, all of them, just disgusting criminals calling themselves great leaders, leaders that nobody wants, except for the people being paid barrels of money to keep them in power. I know its only a TV show and I'm guessing an analogy of real dictatorships, but I hope the writers come up with an ending that gets these thugs out and restores freedom to America, because if they don't, then I shall be very tempted to write such an ending myself.

800 Words (2015–2018)

A very good New Zealand drama

[10/10 · 4 May 2018]

Firstly, in my review of the film of godspell, I asserted that I had watched it on channel 5 and stated that the only good content on commercial TV is material not actually made by them. I should have added that only applies to commercial TV here in the UK. 800 words is an Australian drama made by network seven, a commercially funded channel which also produces the excellent drama a place to call home and the soap home and away. 800 words is the story of a family called Turner , comprising of George, a journalist whose task is to write an 800 word article for a newspaper column each day relating to the days events, hence the title of the drama, His daughter Shay and son Arlo.After losing his wife Laura in a tragic accident, details of which is explained in the course of its progression,(or maybe not quite an accident as you may conclude)George moves with his Arlo and Shay to start a new life in Weld, New Zealand. The family's welcome is not very warm because George had stated in an article that Weld is a dead end, but after George apologises stating that by dead end he meant that it was the end of being dead and gaining a new lease of life. Slowly but surly the townsfolk forgive him paving the way for he and his family to build a very good social relationship with them. Each episode sees the turners involved in a different escapade which involves romance, some misunderstandings, strong disagreements in one episode and the subject of Laura's ashes to name but a few. This is a very good entertaining drama, well executed and directed,and not too heavy. The show is broadcast by the BBC, and although it doesn't produce them, the production values are more or less on an equal footing. Which brings me to assert that commercial TV in Australia (and the USA and Canada for that matter has much higher production values than its counterparts here in the UK.TV Companies like ITV ETC do have good ideas for dramas, its just that they are very poorly executed compared to BBC dramas. So why is commercial TV in Australia so much better than the ones Here? My guess is that over there, a large proportion of the revenue goes on production which is how they produce the above, as well as programmes such as the excellent Prisoner cell block h and Wentworth prison. As far as the commercial TV companies over here are concerned, Whatever they spend their income from advertising on, taking an educated guess, it sure is hell not on any of their productions!

Hard Sun (2018)

A well constructed piece of total incomprehension

[5/10 · 16 February 2018]

Hard sun (BBC1) is a drama series written by Neil Cross who also wrote Luther. Whereas Luther is a well-constructed masterpiece with each episode yielding plots you can understand and really get your teeth into, hard sun was for me one big mass of total incomprehension. Set in a pre apolyptic world, it had bad guys who were bad and good guys- the cops who were rally bad guys pretending to be good pretending to be bad but were really good. Confused? You will be. Actually I'm not quite sure I got that description right but that how it came over as far as I was concerned. It's one of those dramas where you need someone to constantly explain what is going on and why. The BBC has been very good at that type of drama lately.

Now here's the spoiler: at the end of we are shown what appeared to be an exaggerated sunset as to say this is it the end of the world of which had nothing to do with all that went on before it. Except for the man who every now and then delivered the line: "the hard sun is coming and I am its messenger". Actually it can't really be called a spoiler because it is a pre apolyptic drama so it makes sense that at the end of it there will be an apocalypse. It would appear that there are many films about pre or post apocalypse and with hard sun it seems like Television has stepped onto the bandwagon. There is one pre apolyptic film I can highly recommend and that is Don McKellar's masterpiece Last night. As for hard sun, well, as well put over it may have been, for me I'm sorry but I didn't get it.

I Know Who You Are (2017)

Excellent Spanish thriller

[10/10 · 1 December 2017]

It would appear that the IMDb reviewer Mark W from Portland Oregon expects every crime story to have a realistic happy ending where all the villains are carted away in handcuffs with a possible punishment that regards them languishing in prison for many years, and in the real world such people deserve that outcome.

It would also seem that Mark W must be so engrossed in all the American s**t filling our cinema and TV screens and at a guess doesn't watch much material not in the English language that he wouldn't appreciate an excellent thriller if it hit him in the face.

Francesc Garrido plays Juan Elias Who, Suffering from amnesia in the wake of the disappearance of Ana Saura (Played by Susana Abaitua). Elias remembers via a flash back that Ana witnessed him killing a man who was blackmailing him and so had her locked in a basement to prevent her from turning him in to the police.

The whole thriller was Brilliantly written and executed with each episode providing a roller coaster of twists and turns with Garrido who managed to maintain a poker face throughout.

If Mark W was paying close attention, he would have a better understanding of the ending. But, especially for Mark W, and at the risk of spoiling it for people who have yet to see it, I will endeavour to explain.

Firstly, Ana made after she denied that elias had anything to do with her kidnapping, she made a video recording revealing the truth, and gave it to a notary for safe keeping. Ana told elias of the notary and that she would have his sordid secret kept provided that she is given equal partner ship in the firm of solicitors in whish Elias was a principal player.

Secondly, She decided to blame her ordeal on a man who had already spent several years in prison, and while nothing more was said of this, you have to read between the lines and assume that was the accepted explanation and that the person they decided to blame was OK with it.

With regards to the man who stabbed Alicia Castro,(played by Blanca Portillo, You have to consider that he was banged to rights.

Taking this into account one has to conclude that there was no happy nor sad ending, just an ending which left the main villain with possible justice hanging over his head. Yes He gets away with it, but for how long?!.

Orange Is the New Black (2013–2019)

I gave up

[1/10 · 27 October 2017]

I gave up watching this after the third episode of season 2.

I cannot for the life of me think why this was given so many awards. With very poor scripts that do nothing apart from allow the actors to show of their skill, and to be fair the acting is OK, There is absolutely nothing in it that you can get your teeth into and be eagerly awaiting a next episode.

If you want really good prison drama with eager to see the next episode type story lines than I strongly recommend the Australian TV series prisoner cell block h (Never mind the rumours of wobbly scenery, true or not, they didn't distract from the excellent story lines and the pure execution of them by the actors)and of course the recent remake Wentworth prison which has very good and gritty writing. An excellent prison film I can recommend is the Indian 3 walls.

With regards to orange is the new black, don't be taken in by any hype, its not worth a second of one's time.

White Gold (2017–2019)

A big disappointment from auntie Beeb

[1/10 · 26 May 2017]

It pains me to write a review of this content as I am an avid fan of the BBC, but as much as you can dislike something and give credit where it's due, you can love something but sometimes feel disappointed.

The latter applies to the BBC's latest offering White gold.

The series is set in the double glazing industry in the eighties. So far so good, and if there were to be a decent story line with good wit and humour, it may have worked. But the writers decided to turn it into a swear-fest with explicitive after explicitive which not only made the characters sound like complete morons,but completely spoilt what could have been a good another comedy drama series.

I know absolutely nothing about the double glazing industry, and it goes without saying that most people swear sometimes, and even than in only in anger or a state of displeasure, but surely not just for the sake of it in virtually every piece of dialogue as happened in white gold.

The BBC would do well to consider 1 of 2 options. They either continue and drastically moderate the language or shelve it. If the first episode is anything to go by, the latter would be more operate.

Black Roses: The Killing of Sophie Lancaster (2015 TV Movie)

Out of something dark comes a masterpiece

[10/10 · 14 September 2016]

I saw this drama on BBC four a short while ago, and now I feel I must write a short review.

With poetry by Simon Armitage, Black roses tells the story of Sophie Lancaster, A young girl brutally murdered for being a Goth.

I have to say that this is a masterpiece,one of the best 45 minutes of television I have seen.

Sophie, and her mother Sylvia were brilliantly portrayed by Rachel Austen and Julie Hesmondhalgh respectively.

My heart go out to the mother and other relatives of Miss Lancaster who lost her life in the most brutal way.

It really is very sad that it did take such a tragedy to inspire such a masterpiece as Black Roses. Director Susan Roberts did above a first class job.

I assure you it is not my intention to undermine the events which inspired this work.

I'm guessing the family of Sophie have seen Black Roses, but if any of them haven't I strongly recommend seeking it out.

The Possession of Michael King (2014)

How much lower is cinema going to sink?

[1/10 · 4 May 2016]

I really thought that cinema had plunged into the lower depths with under the skin, and that it surly couldn't get any lower. In fact such is my displeasure of that film; I have invented a new award which I have named after it. The under the skin or UTS award will be given to those films I consider to be just as bad as or worse. In my review of that particular film, (which is elsewhere on IMDb) I referred to it as the worst film ever made and said of its director that " given there are so many film makers making absolute trash these days, that is quite an achievement." And with that statement in mind, it is hardly surprising that there are directors queuing up to make films which qualify for a UTS award, and I am delighted to say that the first such award goes to David Jung's the possession of Michael King.

It's the type of film that, if there were such a person in overall charge of the studios in Hollywood, I would be inclined to want to meet with him or her to say that Hollywood used to make such excellent films , Ben Hur, the ten commandments, the sound of music Etc. I would then go on to ask what happened. Why is Hollywood churning out such rubbish? How do films like the possession of Michael King get to be made? I'm pretty sure the response will be that as long as there are distributors willing to release them and advertisers to sponsor them, and of course an audience happy to part with their money to watch them, they will continue to be made. The sad part in all this is that today's generation, those of whom enjoy films like this really believe that this is true cinema. Well it is not. There are 44 users of IMDb that loved the possession of Michael King and with the greatest of respect to them, in my opinion have no real appreciation of what cinema should be and that some of them probably think that Charlton Heston is a motorway service station. Oh yes. What is it about? Simple. Man videos himself doing all kinds of weird things to prove that there is no such thing as the supernatural, and sod telling a story. That's it. I'm sorry but there really is nothing more to say to describe the film. If you want to see a film of that genre, there are plenty good ones out there. The omen trilogy of the seventies, the sixth sense, and perhaps the original hammer films. But please don't waste your time and money on films like the possession of Michael King because they really are utter s**t.

Eurovision: You Decide (2016 TV Special)

Good production, shame about the songs

[5/10 · 7 March 2016]

I wasn't sure what to rate this so I went down the middle and gave it 5 stars which basically is for the good production which is typical of the BBC.

If however I were to rate it for the songs, I personally would give it a big fat zero.

In years gone by, the Eurovision song contest provided songs which are long remembered years after the event. Sandy Shaw's puppet on a string, Cliff Richard's congratulations and Dana's all kinds of everything are prime examples, and of course the likes of Abba, brotherhood of man, and Lulu.

Alas those days are long gone, and what we have today are totally forgettable songs that have quite poor melodies and rather lack luster lyrics that seem to be thrown together as long as they rhyme.

this seemed to be the case in Euro: you decide. Seriously? does anyone with even an ounce of passion for music really believe that any of the contending songs are going to give the UK even the remotest chance of getting much above no points ( I don't know the French way of spelling it) But this is the case for most of todays songs. The panel of judges seemed to have waxed lyrical about the songs and I was shouting at the screen for them to sing them if they think they are that good. If they were in a position to take up that challenge I think they would be stumped because like most songs of some which are okay while you are listening to them and you forget them 5 minuets later, these songs were bone churning awful.

If the UK is to regain its pride and win the contest or at least be in the top 3, then we have got to get writers akin to the likes of the writers who provided the songs I listed above. But while the UK carries on churning out rubbish like the songs featured in this show, we don't stand any chance.

Frankenweenie (2012)

An insult to the memories of Disney and Shelley

[1/10 · 20 January 2016]

Being a member of the "they don't make 'em like that anymore" brigade, it saddens me that the more we progress into the 20th century, the more of a throwaway culture we seem to be embracing. Whereas in yesteryear for example, we had films that have turned out to be classics and long remembered, their legacy handed down through generations. Nowadays it would appear that the movie moguls are making films on a whim seriously assuming that if they have the backing of a well-known and established studio, the same effect will ensue.

The Walt Disney studios have strayed into that path with Frankenweenie, an animated take on Mary Shelley's classic Frankenstein, by director Tim Burton, a one-trick pony whose idea of cinema is to take a timeless piece of work then undermine it by turning it into a whimsical merry-go-round ride that suits the throwaway generation , the term throwaway being apt for this film as the poor animation designs alone (the Dog looks more like an aardvark) make this yet another modern film fit for the dust cart.

Shelley's story, about a mad scientist who resurrects a dead body was an adult oriented story at the time, its subsequent films being given an X certificate. Making the subject in Frankenweenie a Dog didn't work for me. This reworking was a poor excuse in order to appeal to kids as well as adults just to get more bums on seats.

Disney is still capable of making good films. Tangled is an example. I just wish they would go back to proper drawings like they had in the traditional films like Peter pan for instance. Frankenweenie may have worked if that criteria was used and the characters more in touch with humanity, the story more developed and less shallow. Perhaps a different director would have been more appropriate. As far as this version is concerned, Walt Disney and Mary Shelley must be turning in their graves, and if the current staff of the studios are not carefully, Walt Disney productions could end up as dead as that Dog.