Reviews

This wasn't so much a Disaster Movie as a disaster of a movie. It promised much and delivered little. The first 60 minutes was devoted to silly stories of silly people, for whom it was impossible to have any feelings other than boredom and irritation. Most of the characters were obviously stock characters rather than people. Perhaps we were expected to sympathise with them in their daily lives, but in effect I found I couldn't care at all. In fact I was on the side of the tsunami. If they all got wiped out, it really wouldn't have affected me at all. Not build-up to the expected tsunami. No suspense. No excitement. And then we got to the special effects. Except that there weren't any. 100 minutes just to prove that the Koreans cannot make a film. But let's be generous and award it 3 out of 10. And not watch any more Korean movies.

I presume because this is a foreign film it didn't get noticed as much as it deserved. It is a film of "D'entre les Morts" by Boileau and Narcejac, and was also filmed in 1958 by Alfred Hitchcock as "Vertigo" starring James Stewart and Kim Novak. Boileau and Narcejac are the writers of "Les Diaboliques" and the suspense generated by the situation in all their books is extremely good. However Hitchcock made the film depend far too much on the actors and also gave away the twist much too early, and spoiled the plot. This version is superior. It is a moody film and keeps the viewer wondering what is really going on right until the end.

Calling a program "Night Stalker" and the main character Carl Kolchak, does not mean that this program bears any resemblance at all to the earlier series. The brief appearance of Darren McGavin, star of the original series, in the first episode, seems to have been an unsuccessful attempt to give the new show some kind of official approval. But the light-hearted approach and genuine comedy of the original series is completely lacking. Kolchak is saddle with a side-kick and another hanger-on. Vincenzo does nothing and the actor seems to be completely lost. As I suspect is the older viewer who may have seen Kolchak – The Night Stalker and may remember it. The stories are no worse than on many other shows, but then again they are no different from other shows. The on-going problem of who killed Kolchak's wife just gets in the way. And the answer surely is simply that Kolchak had no wife. The result is simply yet another show designed for late-night viewing, which falls into the category of "If you miss it, you won't miss it." My rating of 6 is probably one more than it deserves, and is given in memory of the original and superior series.

"Medium" is consistently good. Whilst all the other TV shows seem to get into a rut, Medium is consistently interesting. We never know how the dreams are going to be integrated into reality. There is no apparent formula. Each episode gives the viewer something to think about. Often we aren't too certain which scene is a dream and which is real. The acting is consistently good. Jake Weber as possibly the most patient of all husbands appears to be not acting because he is so real. The children are perfect, particularly the middle girl. The supporting cast do just that – support the main story. Of course, I don't actually believe that the real Alison Dubois had quite such an exciting life, but as entertainment Medium can't be faulted.

I suppose the idea of using a mathematician to help solve crimes using his expertise does sound interesting. And for one series – not too bad. But frankly I have had enough of the patronising that goes on. Rubbish masquerading as science eventually gets boring and stupid. Blackboards get filled with meaningless twaddle. It's all designed to make us, the viewers, feel stupid. You can make a series where we don't really understand what is going on. "House" is a good example. I don't comprehend the medical jargon, but the characters are good and the main actors fine, so it works. "Numb3rs" (isn't that a cute name?) is just irritating. All the crimes could be solved by normal police work. In fact the mathematics gets in the way of an occasionally good story. So here's a simple mathematical problem in probability. How much can the average viewer stand before the off switch is found on the TV set?

It seems that every film must have a genre: drama, horror, action – something. So if a film doesn't fit into any category, it is described as "a comedy". And if two or more characters have sex, then it is "a romantic comedy". It doesn't appear to have occurred to anyone that a comedy is supposed to be funny. "Broken Flowers" is described as "a comedic story". It isn't. We get to see Bill Murray sitting in his home; sitting in the airport; sitting on a plane; sitting on a coach and listening to teenage drivel. And just for a change we get to see him standing, looking at the sky, or maybe into his past, perhaps his future. Endless pictures of Bill Murray doing nothing. Without this the film would have lasted perhaps an hour, long enough for this story of a man searching into his past for something he really didn't want to find. There is a full-frontal nude (after about 35 minutes for those who want to see her without watching it all), but why she was nude has nothing to do with the film. And Bill Murray's acting? He appears to be auditioning for the part of a corpse in an episode of CSI.

The book takes nearly 600 pages. The film lasts about 130 minutes plus who-knows-how-long in credits. So that there was plenty of time for the book to advance its theories and show how the codes were broken. But there just wasn't enough time for that in the film. So we were left with long periods of talk and inaction, then a few minutes of fairly over-the-top action to make up for it. Hence I felt that the film dragged. What did come over very strongly is the frightening belief that if a "believer" has different views from another "be-liever" but one with a different faith, then the second person is wrong – God hates him, and he deserves to be: framed for murder; killed, tortured – who cares? And if you truly believe in a certain God, then it's great to murder provided you also flagellate yourself and wear torture implements. But if you treat this film purely as fiction (which is quite likely what Dan Brown intended in the first place), then it lacks pace and surprise. By the way if Leigh Teabing really was the master criminal (or teacher) he had several opportunities to do what he did earlier on. The so-called climax and surprise identity of the teacher, was just wrong. In book as well as film. This film is advertised as 150 minutes. The credits started rolling at 130 minutes. I didn't time them, since I really have no interest in who supplied the donuts or did the washing up. But surely they didn't last 20 minutes!

(I kept hoping that someone would put a notice on the fridge saying: In fridge, in plastic box, next to the baked beans. That would have saved a lot of trouble.)

"A Touch of Frost" is one of many British Police Crime dramas: Midsomer Murders, Taggart, Morse, Wycliffe – there seem to be several of them. But Frost is undoubtedly the best. The handful of novels by R.D. Wingfield that inspired this series, are complex and deeply satisfying. The TV series is first class. The stories are good, and the characters real and believable. Frost, thank goodness, is flawed. He seems to be incapable of sustaining a relationship with a woman. His relationship with Chief Superintendent Mullet is not the one-dimensional one of animosity that we have come to expect in police shows. Mullet shows a grudging respect for Frost, and Frost, untidy and hating paperwork, seems to have some respect for Horn-Rim Harry, as he refers to his superior officer. Certainly Mullet occasionally protects Frost from his own impetuousness. Frost is not above bending the rules, even going so far as to frame a suspect he is certain committed a series of crimes. And there is humour in this series, something lacking in most police shows, a lightening of the tension. There are no car chases, no foul language, and no fighting. But the series is tops. There are 36 episodes in the 12 series released on DVD. And those episodes will provide excellent entertainment for the discerning viewer.

This film is advertised as a British Comedy. Well one out of two ain't bad. It is British. But it isn't a comedy. Oh you know it's supposed to be a comedy. Everybody tries so hard to be funny. There are the equivalent of sign-posts: funny bit coming up, they say. But the bits come up and they aren't funny. Maggie Smith actually tells a joke. It comes from a book entitled: The 100 worst jokes you have ever heard. Or at least it should. Rowan Atkinson finds religious jokes on the Internet. He tells some of them. But they just aren't funny. Mr Atkinson, of course, is a comedy actor. So this must be a comedy film. Otherwise why is he in it? Could it be the money? There is the obligatory bad language. And the necessary sex. And nobody in the film seems to care anyway. I've never seen them act so badly. Can we really laugh at acts designed to hurt and that could kill? Is murdering a neighbour hilarious? If you answered 'yes' to those two questions then you might like the film. But I doubt it.

I borrowed this movie because, according to the DVD cover, it starred Morgan Freeman. It didn't. He seems to have been included from some discarded moments from other films. I suspect he is ashamed that his name even appeared on the cast list. Some films go to the cinema. Some go directly to DVD. This should have gone straight to the dustbin. And who makes movies in the old 4 x 3 format anyway? Since all the "actors" mumbled, the lack of subtitles was at first annoying. But as soon as I realised that nobody was really saying anything, I decided it didn't matter. The film lasts 80 minutes, of which the last 10 (yes that's right 10 minutes) is given over to credit titles. That many people to make this garbage! On second thoughts the movie could have been improved if it had lasted 10 minutes with 70 minutes of credits.

Dvorak's music is always wonderful. The singing is glorious. The orchestra is also good And the sound, in DTS, is excellent. But this is a fairy story. It has woodlands and a forest lake. There is a Water Goblin, nymphs, a witch and a prince. And what do we get. A stark modern set. No lake just a rectangular swimming pool, with just enough water so that the Water Goblin can appear to walk on water. The goblin himself wears a suit, shirt and tie, hat and overcoat – just as you would expect from a goblin. The nymphs and Rusalka wear cotton nightdresses. The Prince wears a suit and tie and has a modern beard. The bedroom is stark with very modern furniture. Why? What's wrong with a production that shows us it really is a fairy-tale? Is it lack of money, lack of imagination, or simply that everything must be brought up-to-date and then ruined. So that I found myself tempted to switch off the viewing and just listen to the glorious music and singing. Full marks to the sound nothing for the sight. I could have stayed with the CDs.

I don't mind a movie that doesn't spend a lot of money on itself. But this piece of "I'm a movie maker, you're too stupid to understand it" should never have made it even to DVD. After 10 minutes of trying to understand what the wooden non-actors were saying, I decided that it would be better not to suffer any more. Maybe the writer, actor, director was satisfied with his output. But it might be better for the film industry if he decided to do something more in keeping with his ability. And judged by his efforts in this film, he really doesn't have any. Don't be fooled by "This is an amateur film made on a shoe-string budget." It is a bore and definitely not worth watching.