Reviews

Great acting from everyone and a great script - howbeit never letting the facts getting in the way of the truth! But......

Up to now, this series of The Crown has been a triumph of direction and an example of the very finest visual quality. If you listen to DP Adriano Goldman talking at great length about how he worked with the director and production designer you realise how beautifully crafted the look and feel of the production so far has been. Goldman talks of the "adult" pace, of using one camera to photograph each scene without any unnecessary camera movement, and making scenes last for as long as it takes. Each scene like a painting in which the characters andplot develop. The result is a thing of beauty to see. Sadly Goldman hints that for the later episodes that he is not responsible for, starting with this one, the pace will be quickening and becoming more "modern" to use that ghastly euphamism.

And, here is the first episode that shows this, and what a dog's dinner it is compared to the previous ones. It looks more like a soap opera directed by someone just out of film school, with lots of fast, unnecessary and crass reaction shots and unnecessaty camera movement. It's all about moving along at pace almost as though the Director was scared that people would loose interest or fall asleep. But, perhaps to be more charitable, the big-wiggs at Netflix forced this on her.

I always knew it would be too good to last.

Now onto the subject matter and how it was treated. There were far too many shots of far too many people with learning difficulties - it just went on and on. I have no idea how some of these people could have agreed of their free will to be in the production. To feature so many of them so much was simply ghoulish in the extreme - it should have been much more subtle, concentrating more on the small number of people in the group that were important to the story. But this is probably the first sentance you have ever read in which the words Subtle and Netflix appeared.

With the same DP and Director in future episodes I fear we have lost something very special in this otherwise fabulous series.

I have been writing reviews for this site for 17 years. Mostly films but also TV. Some great films, some very bad ones. Even the best ones had flaws - the acting was great but the direction was so-so etc. etc. But in Black Earth Rising, I think that I may at last have seen perfection - and I don't say that lightly. Where to start? I'll try to break it down then summarise.

Extrordinary complex but wonderfully constructed and written script. Acting to die for - from everyone. Certainly the best directed piece of film or TV I think I have ever seen. Blick's sense of timing is immaculate and his eye for detail stunning. Stunning visuals - the photography by Hubert Taczanowski is an example of perfection - the lighting, the perfect camera movement - just turn off the sound and watch each camera movement and each shot's lighting and composition. A masterclass - watch on a plasma or OLED not an LCD though. Perfect sound - every word, even every rustle of the actors clothes perfectly recorded with absolute clarity. The animated sections were a stroke of genius and so sensitively made. The music always a perfect choice - Lou Reed's Vanising Act especially.

There might be better made TV drama, but I have yet to see it.

I have come away from episode 5 absolutely mesmerized. Compelling, beautiful, powerful - stunning in every way.

Most people either rate this film as 10 or around 3. You know what - it is really both. But how can that be? First of all, the 10 rating - forget the original 2008 film for a moment. Here We Go Again is a cracker of a film which grabs your emotions and does not let go. I exactly understand why Mark Kermode cried - it would be a hard hearted person who did not. We had some great performances by Lily James and Amanda Seyfried and of course the three fathers from the original 2008 film were if anything even better. The final scene which I won't spoil is everything an audience would want and I bet there wasn't a dry eye in the house. Abba's songs stand the test of time absolutely although the use of a few "B Sides" put a very slight dampener on this. Production values were very high, far surpassing the 2008 film in every way. Some really great shots - of all the little boats coming in for example, beautiful colour thanks to the modern Alexa XT in Robert Yeoman's hands and tremendous singing and dancing performances from the "crowd" and great surround sound all added to the performance. Dominic Cooper was reasonable as he was in the 2008 film but rather wooden. But the choice of the shallow Hugh Skinner with his funny expressions for a quite large part, was a bad choice.

Now, sadly, to the 3. Cher was a total waste of space - she added nothing and her painfully artificlal looks made her a ridiculous choice. A good way to get some publicity was the reason for the choice of course, but it didn't help the film for us the viewers. The story, as with most sequels that were not planned, spends a lot of time trying to link-up with the original and cannot help but be clumsy in doing so.

The audience I was in watched in silence - there was virtually no humour in the film - and somehow the opportunity to get everyone singing along was missing - remember the after-the-credits sing-alomg of the 2008 version which was totally brilliant. All we got was some so-called comedian with a couple of lines of out-take which were not even funny.

But it WAS a very enjoyable film and could have been a 10 for me - if only.........

This a fine piece of television with a constantly weaving story line that keeps you rivited to your seat. All the characters are well acted and the direction is top class. Best of all, it keeps us thinking - there is no chance to nod off or or pop out to put the kettle on - you'd miss too much. The atmosphere of the coast comes through really well - Hayling Island near Portsmouth is a relatively unknown place to non-boating folk and has a bit of a reputation as a caravan/holiday camp place yet the atmosphere really comes alive here. Great atmospheric cinematography that never gets in the way - no gimmics just good.

But on UK transmission, something is very wrong with the sound - especially the outdoor scenes. It sounds like it wasn't recorded properly - almost just as though they used the built-in mic on the camera! They've used a lot of compression to try to make it more distinct and ADR people are in the credits so it doesn't make a lot of sence. Oh well, we must not let it spoil a great piece of TV but please ITV, get your quality control working!!!!!

It's not very often that I am glued to the screen throughout a film - there are usually bits when time drags, when the plot is muddled, the cinematography or sound didn't work well or actors did not jell in their parts. Not so in Darkest Hour. Almost everything about it was excellent. Every actor played their part superbly but Oldman's portrayal of Churchill was nothing short of amazing. It was never an actor playing Churchill, it really was Churchill! Sure, his makeup and prosthetics were beyond reproach but his voice, which is nothing like the actors voice, was absolutely consistent and accurate from start to finish.

The only issue I had with this film was the tube train scene. The screenwriter's research had revealed that Churchill did sometimes "disappear" into London and would sometimes talk to "ordinary people" to find out what they were thinking and this scene was a fiction based on that. It was however nauseating in the use of stereotypes of London "working class" people. And the bit where the black man played (I think) by Ade Haastrup completes a literary quote was particularly nauseating, implying that you would be surprised that a black person could do that. Might have got a 10 without that!

But, that aside and forgiven, this is a truly great film and if it doesn't get the awards it deserves then there is no justice! Sound quality which accounts for half of the watching experience was consistently good although there were some silly artificial boomy thumps through the sub-woofers for some reason - presumably a misguided attempt to remind the audience that Dolby Atmos was being used. Atmos doesn't need that - it's very good without gimmicks. Bruno Delbonell's Cinematography, especially his lighting, was as usual beyond reproach, bringing out the beautiful colour rendering with the Arri Alexa. Great that Delbonell used the amazing Cooke S4 lenses, made as they have been in Cooke's factory since 1880 in Leicester England.

All in all this is a superb film that, if there is any justice in this world, should bring in the awards. If the second world war means anything to you, I think this is an important film to see. An object lesson in pushing ahead with what is right and not bowing to peer pressure that governments would do well to reflect on.

Let's start with the elephant in the room. If you were going to set up a remake of a Hercule Poirot film, you would not in a month of Sundays cast Kenneth Branagh as Poirot. Not just because he is nothing like David Suchet but because he is nothing like the character that Christie describes. In this film, Branagh simply dresses up in a moustache and thinks that makes him into Poirot. Unless he thinks he is setting up a brand new version of Poirot, but he doesn't even do that. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of Branagh as an actor but his weakness is that he always plays himself somehow. I expect he was too busy trying to direct. Why on earth try to play the leading role and direct when there are perfectly good directors and far better actors for this part? Truth be said, this has all the hallmarks of a vanity project for Branagh. One suspects that Branagh cannot understand why everybody does not think he is the world's greatest actor and by directing admire him even more. Actually the film is rather well directed but more of this later.

Now, the rest of the cast play their parts well and are clearly well directed. We see them clearly and we hear them clearly as they speak their lines to perfection. The film relies on it's plot and from this point of view it works really well. That said, the previous versions were also very good but certainly not better.

The fight scenes were absolutely ridiculous and if any one thing pushed this film towards being a turkey, they did. Read the book Branagh and learn!!!!!

Now of course this film was not meant to be "realistic" in any sense, and clearly the producers and director wanted to product a visually stunning tour-de-force. And stunning it is but in a very unrealistic way - it all looks a bit like a realistic cartoon. The special effects are brilliantly done but they are very very obvious. The bridge, the train in the snow and the station look totally artificial although as I say, very cleverly done. I have only to assume that this "Hugo" look is intentional.

Now, I always comment on the cinematography. The 70mm film origination looks stunning especially in the effects-driven swooping shots of the train in the mountains. The camera motion on the train, especially considering the narrow corridors is top class and Haris ZambarlouKos must take credit for doing a great job here. I'm assuming the over use of shots looking down from the ceiling and the tracking shot early on of people walking through the train from the exterior were Branagh driven - they were unnecessary and irritating but some of us found them fun.

Near the end of this film Poirot - well Branagh of course as he is nothing like Poirot, alludes to Death On The Nile. Let's hope that if they have a go at that one, they get a decent Poirot!

BUT actually I thoroughly enjoyed this very deeply flawed film! Unlike a couple in the row in front. Said one to the other, I kid you not, "Nice cinema, shame about the film".

The Endeavor/Morse/Lewis franchise is known for it's high production values and these have only gotten better over time. A couple of early Morse's were a bit thin, but with Lewis and now Endeavour, standards are very high. Until Canticle.

How on earth could the producers have let this slip through? A ridiculous almost comic plot that took a fantasy view of the 60's and Mrs Whitehouse in particular, turned this episode into a sad little farce. It was clear to see that the cast didn't have their hearts in it - they had been asked to play comedy roles for goodness sake. Watch Shaun Evan's expressions carefully and you'll see what I mean. The direction was really dire and the cinematography amateur at best. Now, contrast this with the following episode, Lataretto, which was a masterclass in direction with exquisite cinematography and the cast in their best form. It's not unusual for episodes to be aired so that a weak episode is followed by a strong one to try to keep the viewing figures up and I think that this is what happened here. Producers need to keep their eye on the ball- this should never have been made.

First of all, I am a big Poliakoff fan. Shooting The Past and Perfect Strangers were almost perfect pieces of drama - a fantastic story (in the true sense of the word) sublimely paced and acted - a sheer joy to watch again and again as I have done. Good Poliakoff just takes over all your senses - you become part of it rather than watching from the outside. and as with all great art, leaves you feeling almost renewed for having seen it. Close To The Enemy - and I have just watched episode 5 has all the brilliant Poliakoff touches sprinkled on like jewels. It has a finely nuanced story, slow pacing, sumptuous characterful sets, exquisite photography and good music (although this is the weakest of Adrian Johnston's normally outstanding work for Poliakoff). The jazz is fantastic though.

But there is something wrong, and I think a lot of that is in the casting. Jim Sturgess in the lead role lacks any form of charisma - he would be fine in a supporting role, but is appallingly cast here, and it has had a significant negative effect on the production. The character needs to be slightly larger than life and he is simply not. Just think how Tim Spall has set previous Poliakoffs alight. Lindsay Duncan, Alfred Molina and the sublime Angela Bassett have charisma and gravitas in spades but they do not make up for a badly cast lead. I sincerely hope Poliakoff has realised his casting issue and will not let it happen again. But this production, imperfect as it is, still has lots of Poliakoff magic albeit a bit too thinly spread. Still, I can't wait to see the next episode - it is a highlight of my week and the highlight of my current TV viewing.

Update after seeing whole series. This was a very flawed masterpiece. I stand by my opinion of the lead character - a big mistake. I think the whole production was too long and there were parts with no explanation - Lindsay Duncan's character and the perfume formula came from nowhere and went nowhere, though thank goodness for her presence. The "unexpected" end did not seem right to me and seemed a last minute change. But there were times when the magic shone through and the hand of the master was seen at work. My fellow reviewers have been much more negative and I can see why but perhaps time and repeat viewings will change minds You can't please everyone and sometimes genius is not recognised till it's too late.

I'm a Bourne fan, way better than Bond of course and the first three of the series were simply amazing. Superb heavy-weight charismatic characters brilliantly acted by people such as Joan Alen and Brian Cox. After the unfortunate Jeremy Renner diversion, the return to Matt Damon who is superb in the title role and Greengrass directing has been much anticipated. But sadly, it is just too constantly frantic both in the hand-held camera movement and in the overly fast cutting, where Greengrass seems to be trying to make up for the light-weight quality of the other characters. How he must have shouted "cut faster" over and over to try to rescue the movie. Tommy Lee Jones is a real disappointment looking like a man wheeled out of a retirement home and lacking any gravitas at all - not like him normally. If coming out of a cinema with your head spinning is what you want, you will love it. If like me you loved the earlier Bournes, you will wonder if the head ache was worth it. But, after all the criticism, if I had not seen the first three Bourne films, I would have thought it was amazing.

OK, Walk In The Woods is far from being Bryson's best book but never in the history of film making could so many people spend so much time and money to come up with such a flat uninspiring movie. In the film, Bryson describes a book as "Television for the intelligent". Here, substitute "television" for "this film". Just look at the credits - a vast number of people seem to have been needed to create all sorts of trickery - but this wasn't Life Of Pi - it should have been a nicely filmed simple low to medium budget film that capitalised on Bryson's wit, yet that was all lost to make it easy for some sections of society to understand it. It cheapens Bryson and I really wonder why he got involved at all - surely he doesn't need the money that badly. Redford never looks comfortable in his role and Nolte has an easy job playing an old soak - hardly an Oscar performance from either. Redford - surely you didn't need the money that much either? Cinematography was vanilla at very best, missing the beauty of the area entirely.

Or, did I miss the point - was it meant to be funny rather than witty? It was neither folks.

I'm sad for everyone associated with it. Don't buy the CD, buy the book - it is 100 times better - Bill deserves more than this.

Having sadly missed Great Beauty I was looking forward to seeing Youth, in the lovely setting of the Phoenix Picturehouse in Oxford - a cinema where you are not in an audience but amongst friends. I must admit to having a bit of a thing about "star" actors - I see them as a necessary evil for financing purposes and would dearly love to see a film with no well-known actors to mess with my preconceptions - give me a clean slate not one riddles with past images. Enough of the rant! All the acting here is absolutely first class - of course with such a director. But it is the mesmeric quality of this film that sets it amongst the greats. Like a book you can't put down, your eyes are locked on this film as it brings you surprise followed by glorious images then surprise then more glorious images. Coupled with really brilliant sound the senses are overwhelmed. The need for a complex plot does not get in the way of Youth - that really is secondary which is one of the reasons this is such a beautiful film. I've dropped one star because the cutting was a little smug at times, but otherwise this is top cinema.If you like violence and car chases stay away. If you want to be swept up in cinema magic, see it.

Woman In Gold - what a great tale from which to make a film. It would be hard to go wrong wouldn't it. And, they did it well. The result is a crowd-pleaser and although it has it's faults, overall you have to say that it is an enjoyable film. I'm not going to talk about the story because it is well known and most of the other reviewers have dwelt upon that. The film does the story well. So instead, I'm going to dwell on the issues that have separated this overall enjoyable film from what it might have been - a great film.

The choice of Mirren in the lead role. She is a reasonable actor but you cannot see her without seeing the Queen! She always looks like Helen Mirren made up to look like the person she is playing rather than being able to "be" that person. This adds a layer of shallowness immediately.

The choice of lightweight Ryan Reynolds as the lawyer is a mystery. He only adds to the shallowness. There are so many great actors working as waiters in restaurants yet we have to put up with this lightweight. Why for goodness sake? Perhaps he is popular in the US. The name Weinstein in the production credits says everything (and means it will probably get an Oscar).

Of the three lead actors, Daniel Brühl shines above Reynolds and Mirren and gives some much-needed weight. A different league.

The real star is the picture itself - Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer by Gustav Klimt - 1907. Stunning and imprinted on the mind of all who have seen it and well photographed in this film.

The use of Ross Emery as DP was another odd choice as his career is based around car-chase films and films like Wolverine and The Matrix. It showed. Oh how Dick Pope or any number of other good DPs could have improved on the visuals.

As with so many films made for the US market, you constantly felt that your emotions were being toyed with. Little set pieces with false jeopardy, everyone applauding when the goodies win. Pass me the sick-bag someone. And a glossy sheen painted over everything and all ends happily ever after. A bit like eating sugar-coated chocolates - superficially satisfying but very soon sickening. Still, that's how our US cousins seem to like it.

Despite all these criticisms, I really enjoyed this film in a sugary way. Full marks must go BBC Films who on a small budget have a knack of picking the right films to be involved with.

I guess it will be on TV in a while and it will not loose much from being in a smaller screen.

Well, it is easy to see why Eddy Redmayne won the best actor for this - he absolutely was Steven Hawking. The film really is first class and tells a story of Hawking's life (I say "a story" not "the story") extremely well. As a piece of story-telling it is an example to hold up to other film-makers. It is of course a crowd-pleaser and a tear-jerker, but what is wrong with that - it is what we expected after all. It keeps well clear of the "science" of course - again, to be expected.

The main focus is on his terrible disease and the impact on his marriage. Hawking's attitude to his wife however is shameful and I suspect that the film and indeed her book glosses over some things - after all, who could be critical of a man who has suffered so much?

I watched this film in an excellent VUE cinema with a 4K Sony projector, and the images shot by Benoît Delhomme on the Alexa were beautiful and very subtle. A few close-up shots suffered from poor focus and others from clumsy focus-pulling but in an average cinema I doubt anyone would notice. His colour palette and the colour grading was very clever - quite a bright sunny almost Kodachrome look which contrasted with Steven's terrible disease but fitted with his amazing smile. This is a very good film indeed.

Sadly, I am old enough to remember seeing 2001 when it first came out. I saw it in a London West End cinema in it's full 70mm glory on a huge screen. The sound was amazing - huge full-range speakers. A mind blowing experience. Then I heard that a newly restored version was coming to cinemas. So, last night I went to the Picturehouse Harbour Lights cinema in Southampton UK to regain the wonder of this film. I've seen quite a few restored/remastered films and have been amazed by the way some very skilled people have made them better than new. By scanning from the camera negatives, all the losses we used to get from inter-negs and release prints disappear and we are left with amazing clarity and colour fidelity. And, sound restoration can produce stunning sound. So, you can imagine the anticipation as I joined the audience - positioning myself in the best viewing seats.

The disappointment set in at the very beginning as the thunderous Also Sprach Zarathustra welled-up. What I actually heard was a harsh muddy sound almost as though it had come from the ceiling speakers you get in department stored. The opening of the film is a "blank" screen but the blank screen had a small but worrying orange blur on each side of the screen. Once we got into the guts of the film, it became apparent to me that we were not looking at a painstakingly re-mastered digital version from the 65mm camera negative so lovingly shot by Geoffrey Unsworth but at what looked like a 35mm inter-negative or even a print. Definition was poor, colours were blotchy and uneven, and there was even a side-to-side wobble on the live action scenes - and that is unforgivable.

At this point, I should say that I was professionally involved in some film restoration a couple of years ago, so you could say I was being over-critical, but I don't think so. I carried on watching the film finding myself becoming more and more disappointed. 2001 is an amazing film, but watching it in such poor image and sound quality was a great disappointment. Perhaps you need to see it on a huge screen with a huge sound system, but until it is properly restored, I would not risk it.

I left at the interval.

Added after re-viewing...........

Having been very negative about the restored version of 2001 that I saw at a local cinema, I now want to add something to that review. As I write this, I am now watching the restored version on a professionally set-up high quality plasma screen and my own high quality sound system and I have to say that my opinion of this restored version has changed considerably.

I have to put the problems detailed above down to the cinema rather than this restoration of 2001.

Firstly the sound quality is extremely good. The sound field is well defined there is virtually no distortion, although unfortunately some fierce limiting and compression on Also Sprach Zarathustra.

The quality of the images is actually quite stunning - gorgeous rich blacks, superb skin tones and glowing whiteness - in fact it is hard to imagine a better grading then this. The only the very minor issue that remains is the slight horizontal wobble on a lot of the shots which is normally attributable to either warn or distorted sprocket holes or issues with the original camera . This may well have been due to the use of multiple runs of the negative through the cameras. It is normally relatively easy to correct this type of wobble but if different images on the frame are wobbling differently then probably it is best left alone! This is a very minor point - it is barely noticeable, and I only noticed it because I have worked on some restoration of old 16 millimetre films and seen this effect and worked on the correction of it.

My conclusion is that in fact the 2001 restored version is superb and should be watched by anyone who enjoys the genius of Kubrick at his best. If you can view it on a very high quality television with extremely good quality sound then I think that may be better than relying on a cinema.

Oh, and with all this stuff about the technical quality, I ought to mention that the story is Just amazing when you allow yourself to be totally immersed in it. And, the pacing of the film is perfection. The genius of Kubrick and his amazingly talented team. If you take your pleasures slow and sweet, this will delight.

This is a very simple film and because it is brilliantly cast and directed, the result is excellence. Simplicity is something we rarely see these days yet it is something we crave in these very complex times. There are really only three characters in this film and so the casting was paramount. It pretty much goes without saying that Maggie Smith in the lead role is just perfect - as she always is. By coincidence, I re-watched Grand Marigold Hotel the following evening, and saw her playing a totally different person with a totally different voice. That is a skill that few modern actors can manage well. More of a surprise to me was Kevin Kline. I remember him in manic roles - typecast or that's how he is I do not know, but in this film he gave a beautifully measured and emotional performance with only a few glimmers of the manic! Finally Kristin Scott-Thomas was just excellent as she always is. Rarely does an actress gently age so perfectly, and her performance could not have been faulted for a moment - just superb.

Very well lit and photographed in what appeared to be quite confined spaces and with exteriors of Paris that just glowed with it's honey colour there is a visual treat here. And with very well-recorded sound, the film was a joy to watch. If your taste is for quality, quiet and thoughtful, for a well written screenplay based on an excellent story, with excellent actors, then this is a film you will thoroughly enjoy. It will definitely have more appeal to an over 50 or even over 60 audience - younger people will miss out on the subtleness and pathos and not appreciate this film.

The one thing that I simply could not understand was the title of this film. In London-speak, my old lady means my mother! Too late to change now though!

Enjoying a coffee in the café of the cinema, we got talking to an older couple sitting next to us. The man had come especially to see Kristin Scott-Thomas because his granddaughter had been the nanny to one of Kristin's children in Paris. It is a small world.

In the last couple of weeks, I have seen 2 biographical films. Yesterday, The Imitation Game and and previously Mr Turner. I rated Turner as a 9 out of 10 because it was, as a film, a masterpiece. It was not though a "crowd pleaser" i.e. full of romance, humour etc. Imitation Games by contrast is a "crowd pleaser" - and more on the humour in a moment. It is not a masterpiece partly because of this but mainly because it singularly failed to convey the atmosphere of those times without descending into farce. You only had to listen to the constant laughter in the cinema to realise that the director's attempts to make a dumbed-down crowd-pleaser had worked, but to the great detriment of the film. I guess he was concerned that cryptography would be dull, whereas in fact the way he explained all of that was very good and the farce elements were thus unnecessary. I have to admit that I have studied the Enigma machine and been to Bletchley as well as studying the history and current uses of cryptography so I come at this with a fair knowledge of what the film was about and of Turing himself. The story itself was reasonably accurately told and the audience have not been misled.

Turing's team were sadly misrepresented by abysmal miscasting. To use Allen Leech from Downton Abbey was a bizarre decision particularly (crown-pleasing again perhaps) because he acted and spoke exactly the same is he does in that popular TV show which causes great confusion - why is Tom in this film you brain asks you! Matthew Goode was also totally out of place in every respect. In absolute contrast, that fine actor Rory Kinnear was totally believable as the detective - if he can use a Manchester accent, why cannot Leech use a different accent? Inexcuseable.

But, in contrast to these failings, Cumberbatch made the part his own. Extrordinary acting of the highest calibre. There was no confusion between Turing and Sherlock. Without Cumberbatch, this film would sink but with him, it becomes a very good film indeed despite it's other problems. Other actors that turned-in fine performances included Charles Dance and surprisingly Keira Knightley.

Oscar Faura's normally excellent photography was something of a disappointment - nothing wrong with it, but lacking in any sort of commitment (a real contrast to Dick Pope's in Turner). There was quite a bit of CGI used to represent scenes of devastation caused by bombing, and these were simple dreadful, lacking any realism at all - presumably they ran out of budget. Using digital instead of film might have helped here! Faura should see Pope's work on Turner to see how much better digital can be and at much less cost.

Now, I said I would come on to humour. We used to laugh at stammering, at people with deformities, at people of short stature. They were set-up by directors for laughs. Thank goodness, we have all moved on from that. I say all, because Morten Tyldum has clearly not done so and believes that making laughs from people's conditions is just fine. Alan Turing's tendency to be severely logical - beyond the point of social survival - may in the end be what killed him. This can appear as a symptom of Asperger's Syndrome - a form of autism claimed to be associated with mathematicians and computer scientists. Henry O'Connell and Michael Fitzgerald suggest this might be the diagnosis warranted for Turing, in a paper published in the 'Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine'. So, Tyldum thinks it is fine to mock and encourage his audience to laugh at someone who had a condition - one that probably caused him to take his own life.

Unfortunately Tyldum's lack of thought and lack of sensitivity runs right through this film from the casting, the cinematography, the dreadful CGI and ultimately the cheap crowd-pleasing. A shame that Cumberbatch could not have influenced Tyldum but clearly he did not not.

All this aside, it's a good film to see - especially if you are one of the diminishing number who don't know about Turing already. If you see Cumberbatch you will have seen Turing. I hope you understand him, value his genius and that you don't laugh at him.

I saw this film last night, in a good cinema with a good screen and new projector and the reason I start off with this will become apparent soon. The film is quite stunning. We sort of drop in to Turner's life at a random point and we follow it on from there. It is not plot-heavy - we are simply viewers of what is happening to this man. Some of what happens to this man are dull and we see a bit of that too. I'm going to analyse the film in a moment, but overall, this is a brilliant film. In the small cinema you could have heard a pin drop - everyone was spellbound. Sometimes when I see a film, my mind drifts to other things, but not during Mr Turner. I was transfixed and left the cinema with that feeling you only get from seeing a masterpiece.

OK, now let's break it down. Mike Leigh is a supremely good director. He allows time for the story. He does not go if for quick cutting - scenes are long and we watch the actors move as though from the far side of the room. This is a relaxing and engaging technique that aspiring directors would do well to copy. His screenplay provides the backbone to the whole film, and it is crafted so well - capturing just who this man Turner is.

Film-goers seem to be interested in stars and actors but to me, actors are just actors - they are two a penny. The real stars are the creative people - Leigh of course and in this case Dick Pope the DOP who has surpassed himself here. The film is visually stunning - which is why you need to see it in a good cinema that gets the best out of the visual image, not a tacky popcornplex. Ask your cinema manager what projectors they use and don't go there if they are not modern top quality units. Dick's camera positioning, his lighting, his colour palate and his camera movement which he uses very sparely are a joy to observe. He does his own operating and that shows. No fast zooming or unnecessary camera movement, no clever stuff. Just visually stunning. Shot on Alexa Plus - the best digital camera - and with beautiful Cooke Speed Panchro Lenses that together produce a better than film-like quality. Oh, and nice to see the sound recordist in the opening credits, because hearing the words clearly as well as the Foley and other sounds is really important - you don't want to struggle to hear things when you are enraptured with the pictures.

Having been a bit disparaging about actors generally, they are all good in this film as you might expect, and Tim Spall's Turner has lashings of character. But, this is where I would be tempted to mark this film down to an 8 from an otherwise 10. I know that Turner was an larger-than-life character but I think it goes just a bit too far - there just too much grunting and strutting about - it all gets a bit waring after a while - nobody would really be like that all the time. Of course, that is down to Leigh who clearly wanted Spall to bring the character to full life like this. I've seen Spall so often in films and on the TV and he often ends up in parts that require larger-than-life acting. His superb Fagin in Oliver Twist for example. He is not an actor who over acts, but a great character actor who is able to magnify his character when the director demands it. Fortunately for us and him, he is not a "film star" - just an ordinary guy who happens to be a very professional character actor. But, actually, all that grunting and strutting is very entertaining and adds a spice to an otherwise factual film - so back to 9!

At two and a half hours, this is a long film and it has a slow pace, but is is never less than 100% engaging. It is a perfect example of the sort of film we in the UK do so very very well, whilst the US churns out ridiculous hack action movies that are forgotten by the time you get home. If you appreciate true quality and don't mind a bit of grunting, you will not be disappointed.

p.s This film deserves to be seen at a good cinema - it looses a lot visually on a TV.

I saw it when it was first broadcast and I think it is even better now than it was then. This is a real tribute to the BBC people - underpaid technicians especially - who knew how to make great programs, and a BBC with the guts to let them

Given the time when this was made - the crude technology by todays standards, the visual quality of She Devil is brilliant. Waterman and Wallace both grossly over-act but that is done on purpose - it is an overblown piece as it is meant to be. The music on the closing credits is perfect - Christine Collister at her best.

As for the story itself well, it is is as good as stories it get - brilliant from start to finish with literally never a dull moment. It's a bit harrowing, but if you have the strength to watch it, you really must.

There is a bit of the King's Magic Suit Of Clothes about this film. A bit like "modern art", lots of people will pretend that they like it when in reality they don't. It is self-indulgent for sure and at times Anderson is clearly amusing himself. There is a similarity of style between Anderson and Jean-Pierre Junet (Amelie etc) but Junet has real style to go with his wit whereas Anderson is lacking in these subtleties a lot of the time. I also had a problem seeing what was going on for some of the time. Everything was very dark and perhaps my cinema has a poor projector, but I have never encountered this problem there before and I go frequently. Also the editing was very erratic - some shots needed longer because there was lots to take in that was relevant to the plot. Others were indulgently drawn out. I think I need to see this film again because I think I missed some of the plot and some of the clever "only on for a second" shots. On the plus side, the characters and the actors were excellent. The sets were stunningly brilliant. The story is fascinating and some of the dialogue sparkles with humour. Some of the shots such as the red lift scene are beautifully made and the actors and camera movements are clever before they become repetitious.

So, don't expect a European-Quality film but it has way more quality than the vast majority of US films. If you go to see it, I would sit fairly close to the screen in a good central position and be prepared to watch very closely so you don't miss anything. You'll probably really enjoy it!

A few years after my original review, I have re-watched some of this film and have tried to be kinder. This is my amended version. I am sorry to still have to be so negative and I'm sure others have enjoyed it, but I can only say what I think.

Whenever I write a review, I always think hard about how to start. But in this case, it is easy. This could have been fairly good, but sadly it is a truly dreadful film. The difference between a good film and a bad film can be a few small things and usually they are the things that destroy the magic. The Tempest of course is all about magic but the film destroys it. Totally. I'm sure the idea was saleable, particularly with the then celebrity Russell Brand in a lead role, but things must have started to go downhill from then on. There must have been times when they wanted to cut their losses and abandon it, but they pressed on hoping the SPFX would rescue it - instead it just made it worse.

Julie Traymor's direction leaves a lot to be desired - she seems to be constantly struggling to hold things together. The use of a female lead is baffling although the actor, Helen Mirren, who normally plays the Queen of England, does a good job and manages to hold the whole tottering mess in some sort of shape. Tom Conti, a fine actor, manages to get through the laughable screenplay with his dignity intact, as does Alan Cumming. Dijimon Hounsou however is the worst Caliban I have even seen, and I have seen quite a few - again a good concept that didn't work. Alfred Molina, again a fine if limited range actor manages to keep his head down and put in a passable performance.

Russell Brand is unspeakably awful as Trinculo - an idiot over-acting if ever their was. Again, good concept but didn't work. Stuart Dryberg's cinematography is patchy. The early exterior shots are useful for a "how not to" at a film school truly some of the worst exterior lighting since Dad's Army. Look at the credits and you'll find a huge crew who managed under Taymore's direction to product a piece of rubbish - why didn't someone speak up for goodness sake? But perhaps they knew but with all that money at stake, just couldn't abandon things. A new director for sure, a lot of re-shoots, a new Trinculo perhaps could have rescued it. But perhaps not.

I have worked on amateur productions of this fine play which have been infinitely superior to this awful film and I would not insult amateurs by describing this as amateur - it is nowhere near that quality.

I had high hopes of this film. An impeccable cast and as a 60+ myself, an uplifting ensemble piece. Sadly, this was not to be. I have rarely seen a film so "non-directed" with everyone except Maggie Smith floundering around. Sadly, we see in Hoffman a decent actor who tries to direct but should just use his money to hire a decent director. Billy Connelly had me squirming in my seat as he was unable as usual to play any part other than himself. His corny lines and stupid sexual references made the older members of the audience giggle with embarrassment probably because they sympathised with him as he too hoped this turgid film would come to an end. The cast gave off the appearance of doing it for some more retirement money and as such were going through the motions. Cinematography was adequate craft level. We have in the UK some astonishingly good young directors so why on earth use a washed-up American - other than to get their hands on his money? To sum up, glad when it ended. A thoroughly depressing mediocre film. So, sadly, most people will love it

Imagine Mama Mia! without the songs and with a real plot and with a tiny touch of Danish weight. Add good direction, good actors and that magic that is hard to define but lifts what could be average into really good, and this is what you get in Love Is All You Need. It is hard to miss the Mama Mia! connection with the sub-plot of daughter getting married in a romantic place with friends, mother without a partner and of course Pierce Brosnan in a leading role as a father. Mama Mia! was always designed to be light and frothy and it achieved that 100% but this film is has a slightly darker theme and is far more meaningful. The performances are just superb - especially from Trine Dyrholm who has an extraordinary magnetism - you cannot take your eyes from her beautiful expressive face even when she tries to have no expression! Technically excellent with good camera work and fantastically good sound - especially the music, this shows that yet again, the Danish/Nordic/Swedish talent for film-making shines through.

Richard II is not on the list of Shakespeare plays that I would normally watch - certainly not at the theatre. But, as a bit of a Shakespeare buff, I thought I'd give this a go. From start to finish, this was just an amazing production. All of the key members of the cast were at the top of their already fine form. Ben Wishaw, as Richard, was outstanding and brought out just how dull many of the previous Richards such as Olivier had been in comparison. Rupert Goolde's direction brought out so much from his cast and his timing - so vital in Shakespeare, was spot on. But I have to say that Danny Cohen's cinematography was the absolute star of the show. Every shot - and I mean every shot - was beautiful. Beautiful in composition, in movement, in lighting and in grading. The TV just glowed in fantastic shot after shot. I think it was shot on video rather than film but this is the very best "film look" I've yet to see. And let's not forget the sound - always perfectly clear, beautifully recorded and mixed. For those of us who often despair at the production values of TV drama, this was a delight to see. Let us hope that other TV drama execs will see and learn. A huge congratulations to everyone involved.

It all started off as a good idea - a love story, a daft scientist, a gentle but crazy project..... But, where did it go wrong? Well, the story really - the cast is OK Waken fine and Scott-Thomas brilliant. McGregor tries to be a sort of poor man's Hugh Grant which doesn't suit him. But the story is a mish-mash of the unsubtle and plain childish - rather like a first attempt at a novel which it may have been, though Simon Beaufoy really should have tightened it up. It tries to be romantic, it tries to be funny and somehow these get in the way of each other. Situations are set up and then there is a twist. Over and over again. Very few things happen that are not predictable. I think this is what is known as a feel-good film - you are meant to come away feeling good - not challenged, not having learned anything, just feeling that life is fine. But, then, if you want to be challenged, to think, to come away different, Into The Abyss is your film. If you want to pass away a couple of hours feeling good, you'll love this whimsical fishing fun.

We sit watching the adverts and the trailers for the latest awful Hollywood rubbish - the ghastly War Horse and the UK's over-hyped Iron Lady (great impressionist is Ms Streep but that's it). Then, the curtains pull in - that's unusual - we go to 4x3. We go from Glorious colour (on the very day Kodak go into liquidation - I really cannot believe this). And, we small group of film lovers in a club for film lovers - The wonderful Harbour Lights in Southampton - become silent. And, for the next hour and forty minutes we do not watch so much as live in a world of no- colour and no dialogue. Left therefor to concentrate on the visuals and occasional subtitles. We enjoyed the endless subtleties and not so subtleties, the actors expressions and movements. We titter and some sob. And, some of us wondered why we needed colour (let alone 3D) or the constant noise and distraction of dialogue. So, why almost a masterpiece? Well, it was a little self-indulgent and there were some over-laboured scenes (presumably to help of US cousins to understand it). The conversation in the bar afterwards was so so positive - a rare thing. Tonight, I watched Ken Russel's Elgar - also B/W though some BBC fool had stretched it to 16x9 - though it was well graded. It was 43 years old and it was beautiful if clumsily operated. It too reminded me of Kodak and the end of an era.