Reviews

Many of the facets of this story could have been transplanted to the film noir period of the mid-20th century, and bar the occasional reference to technology (which could have otherwise been replaced for something of those times), this movie could have been set then (LA Confidential, anyone?). But it's not, its setting is contemporary. But I couldn't help but think that I would have liked to have seen this movie, and this cast, in a 1940s film noir. A glam Gillan would have been particularly good!

A drunken ex-cop, with memory loss due to alzheimer's, has had an experimental procedure that may help his condition. He gets approached about an old case he worked on, but cannot recall, and where the convicted man is near to his execution date.

Hiding his condition, out of a mixture of pride and knowing that he would not be seen as competent by those asking for his help, he meets the advocate and then the death row inmate, and believes the convicted man's claims of innocence in the murder he was jailed for.

Despite his condition, the ex-cop decides that the case is worth looking at again. No doubt he also thought that the mental exercise might do him some good - as would doing something useful be to his sense of pride (I state for anyone who can't see this premise as plausible).

As the ex-cop looks into the matter, he not only starts to see other possible suspects to the crime, but starts to regain his own memories, as his experimental medical procedure starts to work.

Large elements of the story are shown in flashback, from the point of view of a manuscript, written by one of the characters involved, as well as shorter flashbacks as the ex-cop gradually recalls his own past. Again, this is reminiscent of film noir, where a character may explain what happened and the movie shows it.

Russell Crowe is convincing as the drunken ex-cop with a shredded memory that is starting to come back to him. Tommy Flanagan is solid in support as his old-partner (he needs more character roles so we can see him more often) and Karen Gillan can now add 'femme fatale' to her acting resume.

This movie is better than most people seem to be saying. It's well told, the central cast are all solid and the story should keep you interested until the end.

It is however an end that not everyone may care for and has a penultimate confrontation scene that I found too contrived.

It's not the most engrossing film and is another one of those thrillers that is more cerebral than it is fast moving, but has interesting characters and an interesting enough plot to reach the end.

If you're hoping for a Russell Crowe action flick, you'll probably be disappointed. This isn't as good as "The Next Three Days", for example, but it's good enough to get Crowe and two of Scotland's best acting talents together on screen.

If you don't like film noir, or are expecting a fast-paced thriller, you may not like this.

Summary: Not bad, not brilliant either. Worth a watch (with the above provisos).

I've seen a few other Star Trek fan fictions, most of which were watchable at least, but were generally lacking in storyline and production values, and all too often had poor acting. Star Trek continues however has been lovingly crafted to match and follow-on from where TOS left off and belies the label of 'fan fiction'.

For a production that was outside of CBS and made essentially by fans, and not for profit (as presumably CBS would swoop in otherwise), this is probably as good as anyone is ever likely to get in creating the last episodes and finale that TOS should have had.

It also captures the essence of Gene Roddenberry's creation (Rod Roddenberry agrees), that subsequent 'official' incarnations have increasingly failed to do, particularly in this century and most of all in recent years.

The creators are/were also actors, or for the most part, professional film makers, or at least had experience in fan-fiction. They have done a top-notch job in creating the sets, wardrobe, props and effects, to give it all that TOS look and feel.

The show has also attracted Star Trek actors, such as John De Lancie, Mark Rolston and Michael Forest, reprising his part as Apollo from TOS. Marina Sirtis, Michael Dorn and Jason Isaacs have voice parts.

There are also numerous other actors from other popular TV Sci-FI, in guest roles, such as Erin Gray, Anne Lockhart, Jamie Bamber, Rekha Sharma, Colin Baker and Nicola Bryant.

The storylines are also in keeping with the feel of TOS, and are not only far better than any other similar fan fiction, but better than many contemporary 'official canon' shows.

It may take you a minute to get used to these different actors playing these characters, and perhaps there is the odd moment where they aren't that great (worth mentioning at this point that a couple have gone on to voice act for Star Trek Online), but taken as a whole, this lovingly made "Star Trek Continues" absolutely hits the bullseye for being what it was meant to be; a homage to TOS that (again, unlike recent official shows) is true to canon and gives us a satisfactory conclusion to the the five-year mission of the Starship Enterprise, NCC 1701.

The 'how it was made' and gag reels are also recommended.

Knox, a contract killer, gets fast-moving, dementia-causing CJD, so moves to "cash-out", as his last job 'goes south'. He also gets a visit from his estranged son who is in trouble.

Knox then starts to help his son out before his dementia takes hold - but is he actually helping him out or does he have an ulterior motive and something else in mind?

Will Knox execute his 'exit plan' successfully, as the police close-in over his last job, as well as over what his son did? Will he get double-crossed by an acquaintance? Will his fast deteriorating condition ruin his plan?

Keaton is superb as Knox, even more so when you realise that he directed as well, doing a very good job of that, too.

James Marsden is solid as the desperate and anxious Miles Knox, the son, and there's stirling support also from the great Al Pacino. The acting all-round is top notch.

A couple of quibbles: We never see anything of Knox's boss, Jericho, which seems to be an odd exclusion and a road not travelled, and Pacino's character's relationship to Knox is not well explained.

I see some marking this movie down because they expected a fast-moving thriller, as if there isn't any other kind. There is, and this is one-such.

It isn't fast-moving, edge of your seat stuff. It is more thoughtful and cerebral in nature, as a very intelligent contract killer goes about his final plan before he "Goes Away" - even realising early on that whether he succeeds or not, he'll forget and ultimately not know how it turned out.

This is another occasion where I would rather have given it marks out of 20 (17/20), but given the choice between 8 or 9, I went up rather than down.

It's slow and dull and at times I fell asleep watching it.

I made my way through to the end of season one but I will not be making my way back to it for season 2.

I predict that this will not be renewed for season 3. Because the fall-off of watchers will be felt by then. I cringe at the knowledge that season 2 got greenlit.

The individual episodes gradually reveal elements of the story and promise an ultimate reveal that doesn't fully come, as season one ends on a 'cliffhanger' (although the word is doing some heavy lifting in this case).

However, I've lost interest in finding out what happens next.

There are good things about it. The acting mostly seems on-point, character depth to a degree is there, and the gradual reveals that each episode provides, maintains a level of ongoing interest. But only just.

The situation for the central characters does not however seem to elicit the tension it warrants and too much happens on faith ('I know what I'm doing', kind of thing).

The AI characters seem to have more human frailties and sensibilities at times than the humans do.

There is a general sense that, whatever happens, you know the leads are still going to be stuck where they are, and are comfortable with that. All this means that there is no tension in the story, no excitement either.

Aside from the lack of tension, what really kills this show is that it ultimately lacks the depth of other Sci-Fi before it. The plodding pace, which seems to be largely for the benefit of character development, is all the more obvious because there simply isn't enough going on otherwise. Indeed, you wonder if the characters are being fleshed out so much for that very reason.

The result however is dullsville.

When you do get to the point of feeling that you are sufficiently aware of what is actually going on (late in season one), and then get left in limbo at the season's end, you'll probably question whether staying with it was worth it, and may well conclude that it wasn't.

There is a lot to suggest up-front, with a strong cast in front of and behind the cameras in particular, that this was going to be a really good watch, and to be fair it starts that way. However, it did not, for me at least, end that way.

Science has gone mad, results from the likes of Super Colliders are not making sense. Scientists are killing themselves or giving up on their work.

The investigation around this is linked to flashbacks of 1960s Communist China and events to do with the early life of a scientist who is the mother of one who takes their own life in the present.

And what is this mysterious futuristic headset and game that some have been invited to play?

The first sign of real issues with the show occurred (being careful not to give things away here with the wording and description of this) with communication between two of the antagonists being conducted in a bizarrely childish and inept way, which leads to devastating consequences.

Things could have been a whole lot different had this communication been thought through more (which they had decades to do), although the consequences may well have happened anyway. But these were smart people being devastatingly stupid and naive, and not at a young, tender, inexperienced age, either.

Had this communication been handled more 'professionally', it would have been far more believable, even if it still failed as spectacularly as it did. That could have happened anyway, and with the same consequences.

The antagonists had created a massive, secret 'cult' of followers, over decades, but hadn't thought through their most critical of communications. This part of the story was just unbelievable, facepalm stuff. It felt as if it might have been dumbed down.

At this point you might have expected a close-up of a devastated antagonist and an, "Oh, no, what have I done", sort of expression, to underline what had happened. But it was underplayed, instead.

In responding to the fallout of this, the 'good guys', now that they know what is going on, and acting now from their new, singular purpose, take drastic action. The ethics of what they do and how they do it, is all handled almost as an aside, seemingly only affecting one of the characters strongly.

For me, the story unravelled here, and most of the characters with it. The story had become simplified from its starting point, I had lost respect and interest in the main characters to the point where I was almost sympathetic to the 'bad guys' and what they were hoping to achieve.

Isn't that a major fail for a TV show?

The series seems to have set-us up for future seasons all to do with this singular purpose, which to me just seems dull. I'm no longer interested in how we get to where the story is going, or indeed, any such conclusion.

Given the whole lack of ethics in a modern setting, and what will probably be a series that continues to have an increasing and gory body count, a-la Game of Thrones, I won't be watching any season 2 et seq.

Having seen the movie, these titles of "The Last Girl" or "Cult Killer" (having two is not a good sign) seem absurd and are no doubt part of the reason why some reviewers give such low ratings, as their expectations were not met by reading too much into them.

Something like "Revenge of the Abused" or "The Playhouse" would have been far more suitable.

Overall the movie held my attention as it had an unusual enough premise and I wanted to see how it concluded. It could have been more of a thriller, but lacked enough plot twists and reveals for that, which is not to say there were nonesuch.

There wasn't much by way of suspense, either, as you find out too much for that too soon, and the story becomes much more of a procedural. Indeed, it struck me that this could have been a feature-length pilot for a TV series about a female (English?) private investigator and recovering alcoholic, in Ireland, who sometimes works alongside the police (Garda). However I think the marketing may have screwed it up too much for anything like that. You certainly wouldn't expect Banderas or Eve in something like that. So it seems to have come across that way perhaps more by accident than design.

Alice Eve acquits herself fairly well, and you can certainly see how her character comes to identify with the killer she is pursuing (and vice-versa), but her 'badass' scenes and the character depth she provides are undone by the couple of scenes where she comes across as a genteel English Rose, especially at the end (Oh no!"), which stood out all the more in a movie with some brutal and bloody scenes, some of which her character was involved in. This left me wondering if she was not the first choice for the role, but they couldn't afford e.g. Kate Beckinsale. She just seems slightly miscast, or perhaps the best they could get for it and ultimately, despite some aspects of her performance, as not quite right for the role, at least in hindsight.

Hennig is very good in her role opposite Eve; her character was completely on-point, but the acting honours in this one go to Banderas, who is excellent as the mentor to Eve's character.

I was split between rating it 6/7 (13/20 perhaps?) and eventually decided to go down rather than up. Probably not a movie you would go out of your way for, but it's watchable if you do - so long as your expectations are not based on the appalingly given titles.

From the point of view of the remains of a squadron, with a new replacement after losing two pilots, this story is more about what it was like for the fighter pilots both during and in-between battle.

The acting is good and the story and characters are interesting enough to keep you engaged to the end.

The evidently low-budget does however impact scenes, flying scenes in particular, with some moments more convincing than others. I swear I saw one Spitfire fly through a Heinkel wing (remember a ship doing something similar in Star Wars?) and the scenes showing battle through the gun sights were poor, whereas, oddly, the shots of German fighters in the rear view mirror were better, if still not that great. In short, the effects were low budget.

There aren't many real "Spits" around anymore and at times it seemed like they only had the use of the same one on the ground.

If you are looking for a non-stop, action-filled Battle of Britain story filled with great air scenes and dog fights, you'll probably be very disappointed by what you see here - but if you are interested in a tale about the psychological strain of war and how different pilots dealt with it, this is worth a watch.

As a Buffy fan, and after seeing the adorable Felicia Day in the hilarious Joss Whedon Internet show, "Dr Horrible's Sing-Along Blog" (she also had a recurring role in the last series of BtVS and also appeared in Dollhouse), I then found out that she had created her own web show, so I knew I had to check it out - and when I finally did, I was not disappointed.

Day has created a wonderful set of socially inept characters whose real world lives revolve around their un-named (MMORPG) Internet game, which they play as a group, but separate from each other and (mostly) from their own homes.

Prior to one group member ("Zaboo") tracking down Day's character ("Codex"), in order to express his undying love for her (although he only knew her as her on-line character and avatar), the group had not met each other in person. As actual, social interaction between the group increases, so does the scope for comedy.

An admitted on-line gamer, Day's witty and well-observed set of otherwise eclectic characters and their gaming foibles, whilst also being joyfully stereotyped, are a great bundle of laughs - but that is also largely down to the superbly cast set of actors playing each of the main characters.

Such is the skill and ease with which they have assumed their roles, I found myself checking to see what they had all been in before, feeling sure that I had seen them in something, but instead found - to my very great surprise - that it simply was not so. For me, that is unheard of, and I feel slightly chagrined, but it is also a testament to the cast.

Jeff Lewis ("Vork") and Sandeep Parikh ("Zaboo") in particular, may well find that further fame awaits them, but as Day herself has stated, she had to turn to writing in order to find the sort of regular acting role that suited her, blaming and also thanking the very people who had constantly rejected her for parts. I don't think I've ever used the phrase before in my life, but, "You go, girl!"

Day successfully and skilfully avoids making the script and stories too reliant on gaming or Internet jargon, and as part of the extended "Whedon family", there are distinct traces of the Whedon style and humour in there too. It all which helps to give the show a broader appeal than you might imagine, if you were, say, a Hollywood TV Exec wanting to hear a pitch for a new TV show, and you were told about this - and before it had been made on the shoestring budget that it started with.

As I said up top, I went from Buffy to Dr Horrible to this, and will undoubtedly now check out "The Jeff Lewis 5-Minute Comedy Hour", so I have no doubt at all that Joss Whedon is looking on to all this very proudly - and rightly so.

It could have been so good...but it became lame oh so quickly, and as the season two finale implies that there will be no season three, I have to say that it would be a wise decision to cut it off now.

As other reviewers have said, this is an American version of the BBC's "Hustle" and has shades of other shows, e.g. "Mission: Impossible", so it is far from original - but that, in itself, is not a crime.

Whilst it had an engaging cast of characters who could banter, then occasionally be serious, when allowed, the failure to give the characters real weight, and instead supply glib, flimsy, light-weight story lines, lacking drama or genuine suspense, meant that this show remained light-weight, without the depth required to continue to engage the audience with.

The show also suffered from the heavy back-story provided for Nathan Ford (Hutton), which was out of balance with the rest of the shows' characters, who are thin by comparison. Ford's haunted and heavy-drinking character ended up being an incongruous dampener to the lighter characters of his crew.

Although potentially interesting back-stories for Parker and Lindsay were hinted out, they never really materialised, and the characters remained essentially as tools by which the plot was progressed. More means to an end, than actual characters.

Another problem was the partial writing-out of Sophie's character, due to Gina Bellman's pregnancy, who was important for helping to anchor Ford's character; something a new, temporary character could not do.

Where this show really went wrong was with the writers and producers not taking it seriously enough.

"Light entertainment" is all very well, but people will get bored with it once the novelty wears off.

That has what has happened here, for me at least. If they do make a season three (or more), I doubt I will bother with it. Ah well.

TV News producer, Jane Craig (Hunter) meets Tom Grunick (Hurt), an up-and-coming news presenter, at a seminar, and their mutual attraction takes them back to her room. Romance, however, is cut short, when it emerges that Tom is, in his own words, "no good at what I'm being a success at", and Jane realises he personifies everything she hates about where TV news is going. The rub comes when Tom reveals he is about to join her news bureau in Washington.

Jane and Tom's initial attraction is therefore given a second chance, but will Jane be able to put aside her professional opinion of the man she finds herself attracted to - and should she? Aaron Altman (Brooks) is Jane's highly intelligent reporter colleague and confidante. Despite his obvious talent, Aaron's career is stalling as he lacks the confidence and people skills - and the classic good looks - to be the success that his new, less qualified and less intelligent colleague - Tom - is becoming. He is also concerned that his good friend Jane maybe falling in love with Tom, despite her better judgement, as it becomes increasingly clear that Aaron has his own romantic feelings for her.

This central romantic plot is set within the trials and tribulations of a TV news network office, where moral dilemmas and ethics are wrestled with quickly and where appearances and dramatic effect are becoming more prevalent and important.

This is where most of the bite comes from with well-observed comment and scenes. One of many moments is a scene where Tom meets the Network's top anchorman, Bill Rorich (a cameo role for Jack Nicholson), for the first time, and the camera focuses on their handshake. In a film full of great lines and dialogue, long and short, you realise a lot about these two men's character from this one quick shot of two hands.

The dialogue between characters is amongst the most intelligent and witty you are ever likely to find anywhere on film and in such abundance. Brooks gets the best portion of them, in line with his character, but even the briefest conversations that are incidental and perhaps over-heard by one or more of the characters as they move through a crowded room, should be listened to.

Hunter is a tour-de-force in this role for which she was rightly (and not alone) nominated for an Oscar, and for which she probably would have got if it was for a role in a film that didn't mock part of what had become a closely related industry - and against a strong performance from another actress in a more traditional feel-good, rom-com.

Brooks is also excellent as the constantly frustrated and occasionally too-smug-for-his-own-good, Aaron Altman.

Hurt, whilst possessing the looks and providing the personality required of his character, does not always convince that he is quite as dim-witted the character says he is or is supposed to be. He displays a latent intelligence that enables him to make the most of his apparent limitations, which may be plausible, but I don't think Hurt quite pulls it off. Apart from when he tells us he "stinks" or "doesn't get it", Hurt comes across as a bit smarter than that. Otherwise it is an effective performance, in a role where his character is compromised by its intellectual limitations, but Brooks and Hunter slightly overshadow Hurt's performance. It is the only negative thing I can say about the whole film, and who is to say that anyone else would have done it better, or come off any better, when next to Hunter and Brooks and their performances in this movie.

Support is ably provided by, amongst others, Robert Prosky, Lois Chiles and Joan Cusack, and there is also a bit-part role for Christian Clemenson of subsequent Boston Legal fame, and the briefest of bit-parts for Joan's brother, John Cusack, whose face you don't even see.

James L Brooks has provided us with many great TV shows and movies, and this film should rank up there with the very best of them. It may not have won any Oscars, despite seven nominations, but it did win plenty of other awards, and turned Holly Hunter into a star.

A mysterious young man (Bottoms) derails a Roller-coaster with a bomb, killing or injuring passengers, then attacks more amusement parks across the US in order to extort $1m from the companies running them. It is not immediately obvious that these attacks were deliberate, as opposed to being accidents (e.g. through metal fatigue), so the Amusement Park owners can keep what is happening quiet. It also makes it easier for the extortionist as he has public hysteria to threaten the owners with if they don't pay him off.

Harry Calder (Segal) works for Standards and Safety. He had inspected the derailed Roller-coaster, realises other amusement parks have suffered similar problems and finds out about the plot. Calder gets involved more deeply than he envisaged, as he becomes a reluctant 'bag man' for the $1m, whilst the FBI try to catch the mystery man, just as the US heads towards 4th July and a wealth of potential targets.

This movie is a decent suspense thriller and I have seen it several times. I have never regarded it as part of the 'disaster' movie genre and feel such a description is both lazy and inappropriate. Whilst the Roller-coaster crash scenes were fairly horrible for the time, they seem pale today. The horror is in the mind, and there are only a couple of such scenes in the movie. It is not therefore a bloody horror flick, either.

I don't know if this misconception comes from bad marketing, suggesting that this is a disaster movie, or if there were suggested scenes of gore and blood for the horror fans, in order to con people into the cinema, or if this is down to the critics of the time being lazy and perhaps even reviewing a movie they didn't see. I am a little too young to have seen or read anything at the time.

This is a suspense thriller, even though there is no suspense about 'whodunit', but the movie's style is familiar and it is no surprise to see 'Columbo' creators Levinson and Link in the credits.

The strength of this movie is the cynical, maverick, but quick-witted Calder character that is played so well by Segal. He also has the often-amusing story thread to play with of trying to quit smoking (you wonder if 'Airplane' got the "picked a hell-of-a-day to quit smoking" from Roller-coaster). Calder, we also find, is divorced from his wife, amicably, and has a daughter called Tracy (Helen Hunt, in a child role that hints of the actress to come), and he has a lover, Fran (Strasberg).

Widmark gives FBI Agent Hoyt authority and a little added depth as the film progresses and he spars nicely, if not quite equally, with Segal's Calder. Henry Fonda, in his 70s, essentially has a cameo as Calder's boss, and Strasberg is underused as Calder's girlfriend, in a role that you suspect may have had a little more to it in the script than there was in the movie's final cut. I smell a plot twist that was cut for some reason, perhaps time.

Bottoms is suitably chilling as the amoral, perhaps sociopathic extortionist, because he is young, good-looking, quiet, polite, intelligent, clean-cut, and, as he corrects Calder about his "psychological profile", this is for him a business transaction; he is only interested in the money.

Some may feel that this character is a bit thin, and this may (again) be down to a cut from the original script, but he might simply have been written that way. You don't really need to know more than you ever find out about this character, but because he is a cool, calm sort of a madman, as opposed to the more traditional 'raving lunatic', you may be left wanting at the lack of an obvious answer or explanation for his actions.

There are hints, however. As well as the sociopathic traits, he is an explosives expert, electronics expert, about 30 and, in an early scene, a decent marksman. In mid-1970s USA, what does that suggest? Perhaps the guy running the amusement park duck shoot has him correctly pegged; perhaps not. The Bottoms character simply smiles and walks away, staying mysterious.

There are also bit parts for Harry Guardino, Craig Wasson and Steve Guttenberg, and it features real life band, Sparks.

I recommend this movie. It is a suspense movie that appeals to the brain rather than a horror or disaster movie that appeals more to the senses. It has become a bit dated, as, for example, a $1m extortion fee seems small these days, and Roller-coaster rides were really at their height then, so the enthusiasm for the rides by adults indicates a bygone era, and a 70s movie in setting and style is too distinctive to be anything else, but that now becomes part of its latter-day charm.

Roller-coaster is also a duel of wits, with Segal perfectly cast, and Bottoms, as I say, suitably chilling. With both characters being intelligent and quick-witted, able to plan and to improvise, this adds to the plot, the tension and therefore the overall enjoyment.

You might also recall and bear in mind that this movie was made at the time of "Son of Sam", "The Hillside Stranglers" and Ted Bundy.

I love this movie, despite its flaws. Let me tell you why you will probably at least like it, too.

I have been reading through the comments of this movie and find myself agreeing with many of the generally positive and some of the negative comments made by previous posters. This remains to me a lovable movie, and after nearly 25 years, something of a cult classic.

What always got me was the basic story of the 'dead-beat' younger brother, Jimmy Lynch, played by Timothy Hutton, standing by his tough, elder, FDNY fire-fighting brother, Terry, played by (the very much missed) Robert Urich. Terry had always taken care of Jimmy, but Terry was now the one in need of help care, having been injured and subsequently depressed, after trying to save a girl from a fire.

Terry has been denied benefits and help because he was off-duty and intoxicated. Jimmy goes all the way to NYC Mayor Tyler (Robert Culp), but is rebuffed.

Jimmy's inventive and high-profile - if unlawful - one-man campaign to play on the woes of the Mayor's own re-election campaign and eventually gain public sympathy for his brother's plight, endears him to, and gains the intrigue of, the people and media of NYC, much to the chagrin of the Mayor, and in particular, his staff.

From the early "oh no!" and indignation of elder brother Terry's plight, to the amusing "Turk 182" campaign, you find yourself gradually getting more and more behind Jimmy. But the "Turk 182" campaign against the Mayor is anonymous and its true motive is still to be revealed. You realise, as does Jimmy, that in order to succeed in publicising his brother's case, Jimmy must reveal the true motivation behind "Turk 182! Which must also mean revealing himself and that will inevitably mean having to face consequences.

By the time you get to the thrilling finale, if you are not rooting for Jimmy Lynch...well you just ought to go and change your name to "Scrooge" and have done with it.

You can debate the rights and wrongs of the decision not to give the Terry Lynch character his fire-fighter benefits, but the fact that NYC could take that position, and Jimmy continues to fight it on his brother's behalf, should tell you that the decision is perhaps not clear cut, hence the central conflict that the movie works from. It wouldn't really work if there was no reasoning whatsoever behind it other than, 'The Mayor and the city are evil and stingy'. That's the stuff of Robin Hood and the Sheriff of Nottingham.

However, would you expect an off-duty Fire fighter to standby in such circumstances where a little girl is trapped in a fire, when the trucks and fire fighters are not there yet, although he's a had few drinks, but isn't fall-down drunk? Clearly the movie takes the sympathetic view that it is a pretty poor way to treat a man who risked his life, to save a little girl, and was injured in the process.

This is key to the movie. If you are not going to accept that premise then you may not have sympathy for the central characters and will not enjoy the film as much as those that can and do.

No, it's not the greatest film ever made, and yes it is essentially a feel-good movie. It's a bit flimsy in places, with some dodgy accents (I am not even American, let alone a New Yorker, and I was amused at some of the accents) and it had some thin characterisation in some of the support roles; but that thin characterisation is partly responsible for this movie's greatest asset. Bear with me, here.

That feel-good movie factor you get from this film arises from the empathy for Jimmy and Terry Lynch, and how you find yourself rooting for "Turk 182" and willing him on. The empathy and sense of injustice you feel for the characters would have suffered by having the Mayor and his minions, particularly Peter Boyle's 'angry detective', having deeper or greyer characters and coming across as at all sympathetic. Whilst the point of conflict can be considered debateable, the film's sympathies are clearly one-sided and black and white.

I think Robert Culp plays the Mayor here perfectly. The character is hardly an evil, sneering Bond villain, and it's left unclear if he is actually even guilty of being anything more than a successful politician. Culp's performance just leaves you feeling in your bones that the Mayor is "dirty" and probably guilty of something - and he does not therefore warrant any sympathy.

I can see that one of the reasons I love this movie is because it is a little bit more black and white and one-sided than real life tends to be - and if it had been greyer, it simply would not have given me, or its audience, the same level of empathy for Jimmy Lynch's sense of injustice and I would not have got the joy out of his antics as "Turk 182" that I did when I first saw it back in circa 1986 - or still got when I last saw it in 2009.

The character of Terry Lynch may seem pale in comparison to his contemporaries - such as Tommy Gavin and his buddies from "Rescue Me", but it was a feel-good movie made in 1985. It was made in mind of the video generation and aimed generally at a youngish audience. You could take the girlfriend to the movies to see Turk 182 - or rent the video for the couch at home.

So relax and enjoy it for what it is, rather than slate it for what it isn't. Get behind "Turk 182", and maybe you'll experience some of the joy that I got out of this movie.