Reviews

I was interested in seeing what Spielberg would make of the Pentagon Papers - also this had Tom Hanks (good) and Meryl Streep (whom I have just seen too often!). The start was fine - war in the jungle - then we meet Robert McNamara (the guy with the stacomb, in the words of LBJ). The Ellsberg (for yes, it was he who was reporting in Vietnam!) takes some documents to be photocopied in what appears to be a hippy cell. We know he shouldn't be doing this because the music tells us so. Then we move to a bedroom where some woman wakes up with a start!! The foot of her bed is covered with heavy documents - best place to store one's reading matter. After some telephone calls and a chat with a young man (who he?) she goes to a restaurant. She is so distracted she walks into a chair and knocks it over. In my entire long life I have never seen this happen - but it's our Meryl so it must be true. She then has some class of a conversation with some fellow who is reading a newspaper - THE END - for me at least. Couldn't understand a word they were saying - everything is spoken with a dying fall...and really couldn't care less.

This story of the bear from darkest Peru is presumably intended for young children (readers of the books). I've only read one or two Paddington stories - one concerning his visit to the zoo with a packet of sandwiches, which all get eaten by the zoo animals. In other words, quite a simple tale. I assume I don't need to give the story of the film.... The actual film is wonderfully made - from the explorer's travelogue to Paddington and his family. In fact I thought Paddington was done by dressing up a small boy in a bear suit, his movements are so lifelike! There are lovely poetic touches, such as the wallpaper in the Brown's house, that reflects the atmosphere in the house, and also the sailors swabbing the decks when discussing Mrs. Blair's husband; there is also the touch of the street musicians who act as a sort of Greek chorus. The way the overall story of the family is shown by means of a doll's house is very clever. All the actors are excellent, particularly Mrs. Brown with her interesting clothes! However, the whole story is spoiled by introducing a strange and horrid character - a taxidermist played by Nicole Kidman. The scenes involving her are quite frightening and disagreeable (seeing a tray of dissecting instruments is not my idea of a fun time) - in addition to her character being one of the worst clichés ever. What is the purpose of having this extraneous element - is it for the parents? Can't imagine going to see this film just because la Kidman is in it. I saw the film on an airplane going to Australia and watched it twice - fast forwarding her scenes the 2nd time. Paddington's voice is so well done all his emotions are conveyed. The scene at the train station is particularly good, when he is sitting all alone...I have friends who brought their grandchildren to see the film and had to leave the cinema because the children were terrified! Not much repeat business there I think!! So, only giving it a 7 out of 10

I have just wasted 2 hours watching this rubbish - waiting for improvement! I have read the Agatha Raisin books - very entertaining. Agatha is a brunette with small, bear-like eyes, who has to keep a check on her weight. In this production she is a willowy blonde...... The same magic has been applied to most of the characters. The vicar - a bad tempered older man - is now a very jolly Caribbean type who does carpentry work in the church and crucifies himself with ropes to raise funds! The police chief is totally incompetent in an uninteresting way. I don't actually remember the plot of the book, but it was very amusing and quite bitchy. Here everybody is running round mumbling in strange accents (Agatha - who is from Birmingham - now speaks with a Belfast accent). All in all, a very dismal evening. Certainly not intended for M C Beaton fans! Curiously enough, couldn't find who the scriptwriter was...........

So badly written! Is it likely that a couple going to an engagement party (at which they seem to be the only guests) would be discussing the engagement as they come out of their car?? Surely they did all that when they were invited. Obviously just to set the scene... The difference between this series and any Agatha Christie one is that you never meet anyone outside the murder suspects/police. Miss Marple and Poirot are seen enjoying cups of tea and meals away from the main action. This is a most claustrophobic series - particularly for a foreigner like me to whom all the names seem vaguely similar, as do the characters. Otto and Jan Axel are equally odd names - their owners are quite nondescript. Also the constant by play between Puck and Christer get as little wearying - her husband seems a bit of a wimp. Of course Christer is the most interesting - good old Stefan from Wallander! The only one with a bit of pep! Puck has the most tedious mannerisms (weary side-long glances, pursed lips..) This is the 3rd I've seen - if I want to see Fifties clothes I can look at old Vogue magazines on line! Shan't be watching any more!!

Saw this film recently on TV. It started off well enough - I mainly spent my time trying to identify the painters used as models for the composition (Tissot, Monet, Whistler, etc.). However there are only so many lovely Edwardian frocks one can admire.....The actors all seemed to live in an alternative universe where time stretches out endlessly (one of their minutes equals 2 of ours...) apart from Gus and Mr. Rosedale. There were a number of baffling points - that I haven't seen addressed here - although I have not read all the reviews. 1. The letters: why did the cleaning lady bring the letters to Lily when they were signed by Bertha?how did the cleaning lady know who Lily was and where she lived? Was it the usual practice for young ladies to have one hundred dollars (presumably a very large sum at the time) about their person - Lily didn't even need to go to another room to fetch the cash... 2. How come Lily, a young lady living with her aunt, went all on her own to the opera with 2 men - neither of which was related to her? This seems very odd to me - after all one's reputation was very fragile I can't imagine this happening in Edwardian times. 3. Why did Lily not sell her earrings if she was short of cash? 4. Who was the duchess and why should she be invited to dinner - to impress who?? All in all, while the film seemed to drag on for ever none of the characters was properly developed and we kept meeting new and mysterious people. the whole story was quite uninvolving since we didn't really know who anyone was or their position in society. I assume Mrs Fisher was a lower rung than Bertha of the large yacht - as evidenced by her sloppy way of sitting! Lily comes across as a very silly person - but I think we're meant to sympathise with her. Selden meanwhile is just a rather smug lawyer - he never says anything amusing or interesting - and yet is not even a reprobate.

Saw this yesterday on a Sky channel. What with Christmas etc., not much to watch on television. I knew nothing about it except it was well-known and by the Coen brothers - whose Burn after Reading I thought the most amusing film in years. At first all went well, but as matters progressed I found that the heavy Texas accent and mumbled speech were almost completely incomprehensible - although I got the picture anyway. It did however become more and more annoying. I am an interpreter and well used to understanding English (and variants) spoken in many different accents. This was too much! Of course, it didn't really matter what anybody said (was this one of the messages of the film?), since it was entirely predictable...apart from the little scene where the garage owner must make a call on a coin - the subsequent dialogue showed that someone has been reading their Beckett (top of the class!!). All quite tedious - though I must confess to having watched to the ponderous end - where the sheriff tells his girlfriend his entirely dreary dream about his father. One of the most interesting points was how they got a shirt that perfectly matched the colour of her very unusual blue eyes!!

Watched this because I like dogs. The dog itself was perfect - some sort of Irish terrier cross - very "doggy" looking. The story was quite good I thought. The nasty little boy turns out to be quite a pleasant fellow.......although I think he is meant to be adorable! Couldn't understand more than 30% of what anybody was saying, but that didn't really matter - they all seemed quite standard people with nothing interesting to say. The firemen were a sort of Keystones Cops bunch - a black person, a Latino, a woman and a blond chap who seemed quite stupid. Unlike other reviewers I didn't mind the relatively coarse scenes of the dog farting and snoring....I did however object to the scene where the dog has been reunited with his original owner who - to celebrate - offers the animal a variation on a group of hookers - three differently colored poodles! This really seemed vulgar and not particularly suitable for the children who are presumably the target audience - but then indoctrination can't start too soon!!

I had so been looking forward to seeing this and actually bought the DVD. It may pass as a thriller if you have been living under a coconut tree for the past 40 years, without benefit of television, radio or newspapers. Shock Horror! Lawyers will act for parties they know or suppose are guilty!! Money is more important to them than ethics!! The film starts with a voice-off of what sounds like a very annoying drunk rambling on about some dream-like experience. Mercifully, he is killed off relatively soon - he is a lawyer who has seen the light and realises that the gigantic corporation he is acting for in a class action is indeed guilty of the deaths of many people (was it fertiliser or weed-killer? something like that). There is another lawyer played y Tilda Swinton who is very nervy and bony faced - we see her practicing her speeches at home and pretending to be relaxed. This would be more effective if in fact the woman did not look like a ball of nerves (those gaunt cheekbones and staring eyes - not to mention the rather grubby hair!). George Clooney is the good guy - a friend of the rambling first lawyer and saves the day in the end - but not without having his car blown up. There is a very interesting vignette of the domestic life of the New York middle classes: a particularly tedious little boy (about 7 years old) arrives for breakfast shouting to know where his "cards" are (what these are we never find out). No nonsense about saying "good morning mum, dad and little sister" - just peremptory requests for his cards. The mother seems quite helpless and reacts like a servant who is about to be fired for incompetence. If this is true to life, it might explain why children are so very badly brought-up. If the drunken/drugged out lawyer had ever been shown to us as a normal, pleasant, fellow, we could empathise - as it was I was delighted when he disappeared (I must confess I did not witness this, having left the room to make tea and do the washing up!). The best actor was Syndey Pollack and the bay horse that our hero gazes at - it would be too tedious to explain when and why. Anyway - a complete waste of time ............and money

Watched this on a rainy evening on TV. The script was really very poor - Jane seemed so insolent rather than entertaining. The costumes however were delightful. Anne Hathaway is absolutely dire - she just looks like the Devil in Prada person - expressions varying from baffled wide-eyed to sad wide-eyed - always with a lot of very red lipstick and irrelevant curl of the lip. She seems always so dreary and depressed, whereas the writings of Jane Austen are so witty and astute - but of course that's the script. For some reason, I think she walks in a very modern way............big strides rather than little steps - but probably my views of the nineteenth century are quite wrong. The Lefroy character is very good - at least he seems amusing! Maggie Smith is as usual great fun - her nephew seems perfectly acceptable as a husband - specially for a bossy-boots like this Jane! I thought the little sex-scene at the beginning between the mother and father was particularly humorous (after 32 years of marriage!!!). .

Meryl Streep was great (as usual), as were most of the cast. Only problem was the dreary heroine, with her smug little smiles (obviously has trained on TV - where all emotions have to be underlined, for viewers who are multitasking!). After seeing many British comedies of the golden Fifties, this all seems curiously maudlin - even Miranda Priestley has to have a little secret smile at the very end. This is to show that she too is a good person (in case we didn't understand it from the reference she had given to Andy's prospective employer). However, it passed a couple of hours pleasantly - I assume it did convey the essence of working on a high-powered fashion magazine. Gave it a 7 for a good try, but as usual they chickened out.

Laughably references Hitcock's Lady Vanishes (child laboriously doing a little drawing on the condensation of a window) - showing considerable pretensions for what is a fairly humdrum drama. I found it hard to believe it only lasted 1 hour and forty minutes, seemed to drag on forever, but not owing to the suspense. I shan't go into the plot, sufficiently discussed in other comments. The only good actor seemed to be Sean Bean as the airplane captain, driven beyond endurance by a shrieking Jody Foster. I do think if instead of shouting she had at least tried to speak quietly, she might actually have been listed to a little more. It does seem odd to have 2 passengers come on board long before the other passengers, without attracting anyone's attention, but that is only the start of the problems. Do coffins routinely carry electronic locks? In this day and age I should imagine they are in any case very carefully X-rayed, as being the obvious place to put any contraband, let alone the materials for a bomb. To complete the dreary scenario (??), typical Hollywood touch: the Arab that our heroine has been screeching at and who has been assaulted by another passenger as being a terrorist very kindly picks up her handbag and gives it to her at the end...cold look from Jody (no thought of saying thank you)..the end. Such claptrap! My only excuse is that I was doing a complicated knitting pattern and was just passing the time....

This is a wonderful film, with a great script and direction. It perfectly illustrates how easy it is to be sucked into deceit. At first it seems harmless, but as events gather momentum, it becomes ever more difficult to opt out. The most impressive part of the film is the quality of dialogue. It is most unusual to have realistic intellectuals - I am particularly mindful of this after just seeing Five Easy Pieces, where the family of musicians have the most mundane conversations - with never a hint that they are (apparently) famous virtuosos. I have seen this film about 5 times and it gets better every time. John Turturo is great, and it must be one of Ralph Fiennes'best performances; of course Paul Scofield is, as usual, perfect!

A hilarious account of the tribulations of a middle American family in whig the father has gone off with Julia Roberts - leaving grouchy Susan Sarandon behind to do her patchwork (she's a Mom, you see) - in her magnificent Victorian house. Far from being happy to be left with her two "adorable" children, Sarandon complains constantly - though her ex-husband seemed perfectly non-descript - but of course he was very caring really! An eye-opener on how the upbringing of children is perceived in the USA - apparently they have to be consulted about anything the parents to - even dying! When a tearful Mom tells the kids she has cancer, the 12 year old daughter starts screaming, because Mom has lied by not revealing her illness earlier (!!!!!) Hard to believe, isn't it? Although I suppose it is really a transfer of anguish. Similarly, it is apparently quite usual for 12 year olds to have boyfriends at school!! The parents when they hear of the kids' love-life (i won't go into the tedious details) don't say "Perhpas you should be studying", but just give "helpful" advice. I was riveted by the whole thing; I think it is meant to be a three handkerchief weepy, but I mainly laughed at all the peculiar behavior. Sarandon's right eyebrow was working overtime throughout, Ed Harris looked (as well he might) pretty overcome, Julia Roberts seemed constantly to be trying not to laugh (or maybe I misread her face?) All in all highly recommended - for all the wrong reasons.

Very poor. I used to really look forward to this series; Frost used to be a fairly civilised, although unpolished, person. He is now just a buffoon, who seems unable to speak in a normal manner, but always in a "playground wit" way. What is the projected target audience for this series? Is it meant to be a comedy, or a slight detective series?? The humour, that used to be entertaining, has now become very coarse and tedious (example: "He died in his own vomit", "Better than in someone else's"). Can't comment on the actual storyline, since I only watched 20 minutes - till we got to the quip about heavy breathing. Just like the Carry On series of films....

Compared to the amusing British "Carry On" films, this is very po-faced. Can't decide whether to go for straight black comedy, or a more portentous look at the problems of medicine and human relationships. Our hero (George C. Scott) feels suicidal because he feels he cannot change the system; however, he meets a badly miscast Diana Rigg (who looks much too intelligent for her cooky role, in addition to carrying the ghost of Emma Peel). This layer of story is quite tedious. The comedy of mismanagement in hospital is however wonderfully well-done, particularly people being put into the emergency holding area and being forgotten - this is happening all the time in Ireland at present. So the verdict is: entertaining but could have been more amusing and a bit sharper.

This story of the coming ice age starts off very well, as several people have pointed out. In fact it is rather like one of the great John Wyndham's stories (Days of the Triffids, etc.). The special effects are great. Unfortunately, it soon has to appeal to the teen market and instead of continuing on a scientific / political course, we have to become involved in the usual rubbish about a Dad who simply loves his son - but has had a row because the son got an F in his exam! We then have to follow the son (who looks about 30), mooning after a fellow-student - who looks like a well-preserved 32. The parents meanwhile are very distraught about their son. The chief scientist (father) goes to New York by car and on foot and finds him; the young folk are in the New Yortk Public LIbrary burning books. I was doing my knitting and making tea at the time, so missed a few beats. They seem to have access only to the more recondite type of books (no newspapers apparently - that they could use for insulation) - so that we have to endure another young idiot lecturing the resident intellectual about Nietzche and the Bible etc. Extraordinary that the intellectual pays any attention to the views of this silly person (it is of course a girl, PC reigns supreme in this film). However the special effects were great and all ends well - what a surprise! In fact my TV went on the blink in the middle - so I thought that a very appropriate end had been reached - but it was only a glitch!

The only mystery was "whatlipstick is our heroine wearing?" It is a wonderful color, softly shining and lasts throughout - except at the climax when it starts to fade! Contrasts nicely with Smilla's beady eyes (admittedly quite large) as she stares at the camera. There are so many questions - why am I watching this (rainy evening), what is the role of the police in the plot (surely it is unusual in Denmark for the police to enter an apartment and sit in the dark waiting for the owner to return), how much money does an unemployed person in Denmark get (Smilla's haircut did not come cheap!), how does a worm live in a meteor, what was Smilla looking at through her microscope......... All the old stalwarts are there - Gabriel Byrne, obviously trying to remember where he is; Richard Harris, mercifully silent so just playing with his hair; Vanessa Redgrave, doing a wonderful imitation of Ingrid Bergman in "Murder on the Orient Express". We have the Deus ex Machina - just like in Diva - here is it the Father - kindly, wise, wealthy, with the answer to all questions; he does however enliven his days with the only amusing character, a ballet dancer.