Reviews

It has no story to tell, a pretty serious defect for any film. It's a well made, well acted film but goes nowhere.

Frankly I was bored. It was just about interesting enough to keep me watching to the end - but only just.

A high powered banker opts out of the rat race and takes a job as a bank manager in a small town. He impresses the local community by giving them a level of input to their financial issues that they've not had previously.

His artistic wife wonders what this is all about but supports his decision. But she also embarks on an affair with one of her thespian friends. However our hero wins her back in a non-violent way. Their teenage son is also confused by the whole thing.

As a chartered accountant I recognise the script weaknesses in that much of the brilliant financial advice is pretty obvious. On the other hand I remember some of the dramatic scenes twenty years later so it made an impression.

I came across this while browsing IMDB and noticed that no-one had commented. I thought it deserved at least one write-up.

I agree with the comments made previously about the underlying Christian values of Harry Potter, but I notice that no-one who's commented so far has actually said anything about the content of this video. Given its provenance we can guess the contents, or think we can, but ought we not to see it before we condemn it? Otherwise we commit the same error as we accuse in the makers.

From reviews elsewhere by people who have seen it, I gather that it states that J K Rowling has (in the past) been a practising witch but no evidence for this is offered and she has explicitly denied it.

Apparently it also gives an inadequate account of the Biblical authority on witchcraft. The Bible refers to witchcraft or magic in 29 separate verses. Some are neutral, for example where King Saul approaches the Witch of Endor to summon the spirit of the dead Samuel (which she does, although he isn't pleased to be summoned) or when the King of Egypt's magicians try to replicate the plagues (they actually manage the first two but not the others). The other references are mostly hostile but it's interesting that nowhere does the Bible say that witchcraft is dangerous (I personally think that's true, but I'm just pointing out that the Bible doesn't say it). The basis of the condemnation is that magic and witchcraft rival the worship of God and it's usually bracketed together with the worship of idols.

Nowhere does the Bible condemn (or even mention) the use of magic in fantasy and imaginative literature. In fact Christians have produced more than their fair share of such literature e.g. C S Lewis (Narnia), JRR Tolkein (who was a Catholic), William Horwood (Dunction Wood) and Stephen Donaldson (The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant - which has a surprising level of violence from a Christian pacifist).

Lewis and Tolkein were friends and saw the revitalisation of fantasy literature as a Christian contribution to art. The sort of literature taken seriously in academic circles in the 50s and 60s was generally "realistic" and increasingly sexually explicit (e.g. D H Lawrence). Lewis and Tolkein wanted to show that "escapism" could explore themes like honesty and heroism and open up the world of the imagination, to adults as well as children. They certainly started a trend although their colleagues weren't too impressed.

I suppose there must be an argument that some of the appeal of Harry Potter is the idea that we might have hidden special powers and this might be a bad impulse to foster, but it's surely pretty thin and no-one criticises other literature that's open to the same charge.

There's obviously publicity to be had by attacking something that's popular and it satisfies the fundamentalist persecution complex which is a noted feature of their psychology, but this is mere supposition and I still think we all ought to see the thing (or at least talk to someone who has) before we go too far with our comments.

My favourite part was when the staircases changed (Simon age 7).

We went as a family and we were all very impressed. There is nothing wrong with the acting, it is uniformly good and neither is there anything duff about the special effects, in fact they are excellent and the result is a delight to watch which has a 'magical' atmosphere. I give it 10 out 10.

My favourite characters are Shrek and the talking donkey (Simon age 7).

Both our children (who are 7 and 5) enjoyed this film enormously and it was not merely tolerable for adults but actually good fun.

The ending was a delight.

A violent gang take over a small town where a train carrying gold is shortly due to pass through. The local lawman stands up to them but is killed. Everyone else is too frightened to resist, except for a couple of strangers who everyone else views with suspicion but who have a final shoot out with the gang and save the town.

Sounds familiar? Like a lot of other westerns? Yes, except that the town is in Siberia, the gang are criminals released in an amnesty (prison bosses took the opportunity to relieve themselves of the prisoners who caused the most trouble) and the strangers in town are political exiles from Moscow.

It's well executed and entertaining, even with subtitles. It proves that certain ideas cross cultural boundaries.

Modern special effects help a bit but it is the script and direction which make this a brilliant re-interpretation which is easily the scariest of the series and objectively the best. The 1956 version was excellent by the standards of the time but given the choice I'd rather watch this one. The 1978 remake was pointless and has little to commend it.

The teenage heroine in conflict with her father and stepmother and the army base background both contribute to the understated theme of conformity and rebellion.

The Faculty is effectively another remake, this time in a High School, and picks up the teenage theme with the human rebels against conformity being those who are not "in". Also worth seeing.

Simon (7) and Vicky (5) thought this was terrific and watched it again after only a week. Their favourite scenes were Number 5 reading very fast, parachuting and making the ex-boyfriend's trousers fall down by a laser shot at his belt buckle.

I admire director John Badham's ability to "pace" a film so as to make a thin plot into a story that holds the interest throughout. He did it again in War Games.

A good film for children that adults can also enjoy.

Shot from child height so that we look up at the adults. The people chasing ET carry keys not guns. These two details show the brilliance of this film.

The children accept ET where the adults react with fear, hostility and the desire to control (hence the symbolism of the keys).

Contains the magical dialogue:

"...we're helping him to get back to his spaceship"

"Can't he just beam up?"

"Don't be silly - this is reality!"

I still cry every time I watch the scene where ET comes back to life. This film is a true religious experience.

You see there's a pattern now in the film industry - Hollywood does action films, because they cost so much to make, and the Brits do comedy or drama. The strength of the Brits is that they produce gritty, real life films that contrast with the Hollywood approach where everyone's wealthy and attractive.

Downtime is a worthwhile attempt at a British style action film. Incidentally the location is Newcastle, not Liverpool as stated by the chap from Norway. I realise that I'm in a minority but I liked it and could relate to the characters and the situation.

It was a nice touch to have a hero who, as well as climbing liftshafts, is asthmatic. The ending in the hospital is fine too. I love the part where Paul McGann asks the gunman to wait a moment while he discusses his relationship with the mother. It's not the best film ever made but its a 6 or 7 out of 10 and doesn't deserve its current average score of 4.2!

This is a quite extraordinary piece of film - one of the most powerful I've ever seen. The majority of the action takes place at night and the use of firelight to create patches of light for the action to take place in is very effective.

The plot is developed with real pace, keeping the viewer on the edge of his/her seat.

It seems to me to be more about mob rule than about racism and having reflected on this (this is a film that demands from you a personal response) I am not quite convinced. Clearly the majority of the mob know that the witness is unreliable and have more than an inkling of the truth. Yet there are no voices of doubt until the Sherriff is finally stirred by the courage of the hanged man (you need to see the film to understand what this is all about).

Harper Lee painted a more complex and ultimately more convincing picture of the racism of a small town in the American South in "To Kill A Mocking Bird", with which there are some parallels (black man accused of raping white girl and the scene on the steps of the house where the mob is turned away).

Although not especially gory, the violence is disturbing and I imagine that some sensitive viewers might not get through it.

This is a rarity - a sequel that's better than the original.

Sigourney Weaver shows all the male action hero's how it should be done by adding sensitivity and commitment to the role, the ingredients so sadly lacking in macho "grunt" movies like Rambo.

There are so many great scenes, but especially the sequence where she goes back into the abandoned complex. In the lift (alright then, elevator) she strikes a pose before setting out - awesome.

And what a great understated performance from Michael Behn, surely one of the most underrated actors of all time.

This is a rarity - a sequel that's better than the original.

Sigourney Weaver shows all the male action hero's how it should be done by adding sensitivity and commitment to the role, the ingredients so sadly lacking in macho "grunt" movies like Rambo.

There are so many great scenes, but especially the sequence where she goes back into the abandoned complex, with the countdown running, to rescue the little girl. In the lift (alright then, elevator) she strikes a pose before setting out - awesome.

And what a great understated performance from Michael Behn, surely one of the most underrated actors of all time.

This is actually is a movie about politics and the message is that the system takes over from those who start out with good intentions. From a UK perspective it means more now (the year 2000) than it did when it was released because then it was a picture of where we were heading and now it speaks to where we are!

Soundbites, image and personalities take over from substance, especially as the candidate gets closer to victory. Only those who know they are going to lose can afford to be completely honest, is the message, and the closer you are to winning the more you are under the control of the party machine. As an independent local councillor in the UK I can personally testify to this.

The seventies hairstyles and clothes are unfortunate to the modern viewer but we still recognise the characters, the pressures and the motivations.

As "message films" go, one of the best ever made.

Debra Winger is great as always as the FBI backroom researcher allowed out for a change to pursue her theory that the widows of several millionaires who have all died of the same rare disease are in fact the same woman.

She finds herself fascinated as well as repelled by Theresa Russell's glamour, lifestyle and ability to use men for her own ends. Russell in her turn sees her as a worthy opponent (unlike all those men she takes in so easily).

In fact all the men are just part of the background to the play between Winger and Russell.

Its a terrific film all round and I may be alone in this, but I think the ending works.

This is one of the best films I have ever seen. The heroine (Kylie Travis) gets involved in an argument in which a husband kills his wife. She runs away and is transported back in time, giving her the chance to prevent the murder.

She makes successive attempts to solve the situation which is gradually revealed as more and more complex with each trip back.

This provides a fascinating insight into the question of how you would live your life again given the chance but it is first and foremost an action movie.

It is very well acted and directed with terrific pace. It surely didn't deserve an '18' rating. There is lots of violence but of the shooting and explosions type - you see as much on TV any night of the week. I would strongly recommend this film to almost anyone.

British films cannot compete with Hollywood in big budget movies and the best therefore produce the kind of thing that Hollywood just won't do. Such a film is Brassed Off. Ignore those who get sidetracked into the rights and wrongs of keeping coal pits open in the present day and step into the shoes of those on the receiving end of the consequences of the closures.

Never mind the cold economic logic behind the issue, feel what they feel, be touched by the music (especially the stirring 'Orange Juice') and see how the nobility of the pieces chosen acts as a counterpoint to the emotions of the players. The sequence where we see the negotiations in progress as a silent visual, interlaced with the band playing that piece of music is simply brilliant.

As a footnote, the audience reaction to Pete Postlethwaite's final speech was genuine. The director didn't tell them what to do, he just let it happen and the applause rippled round the assembly absolutely naturally.

This film works if you view it as a romantic comedy and not as a political statement. What a romance needs is a good obstacle and here's an original idea - one of the couple is president of the United States. As their relationship grows it starts to be used against him and damages his prospects of re-election.

This is a rarity - a film in which every scene and virtually every line contributes something worthwhile so that there is nothing I would wish to see cut. (Most films have some boring bits.) The partnership of writer Aaron Sorkin and director Rob Reiner achieved the same in A Few Good Men, another film without a minute wasted.

Some people feel that the portrayal of the right wing senator is unrealistic because its too unsympathetic. I think the problem is more that Michael Douglas is a better president than any real life president could ever be. But hey, this isn't real life - this is the movies!

The underlying political message is that liberals should have the courage of their convictions and that if they will only say what they believe, they will find that their views are more popular than they expected. Given the film's timing, the run up to the 1996 presidential elections, it's possible that the real target is Bill Clinton.