Reviews

I've watched the first two episodes after being tempted by a promo prefaced by 'from the producers of Breaking Bad'. Reading reviews about its slow pace put me off slightly, but I went ahead with the first episode and was hooked about 15 minutes in by the writing, the excellent use of silences and the sheer quality of the performances. Aden Young is mesmerising, his thousand yard stare bringing nuance to every scene he is in, and he is ably supported by a cast I know from nowhere else, with the exception of Adelaide Clemens. The pace is slow, but not in a frustrating way - it seems entirely appropriate to let the audience experience the bewildering, overwhelming experience of being free after two decades on Death Row, and while after two episodes, I am no wiser as to Daniel's innocence, I do find that I genuinely care about it, and that's pretty much the most important thing to me in any drama: I should care about the people (like them, hate them) otherwise I'm just watching moving images. Having said that, the moving images are pretty compelling also - the use of light and the photography are evocative, as is the atmosphere of the small, southern town and the sometimes claustrophobic interiors. Genuinely impressive TV-making; I'm pleased to know there's more to come.

I downloaded this show because, well, apart from living in England and thus not having ABC, I download most new shows, but I rarely bother getting the second episode unless it's really good. I wasn't expecting much from this, the title isn't especially gripping, and anyway is the title of a lame duck Aussie soap from way back :) However, about 5 minutes in, my friend and I simultaneously announced 'wow, this is actually really good!' and now, having seen the first two episodes, I am really impressed. We both were.

Sadly, however, it will probably be cancelled because it demands too much of a lazy, apathetic viewer. It has more than 4 characters, it has overlapping dialogue, it has actors who look like real people (gasp) instead of blow-up dolls, and it requires a (hear the bell toll, Fred) sense of irony to appreciate the comedy. Shame you guys didn't make this in Europe - you would be set for life :/ I hope it lasts though, the kids are great, it had some laugh-out-loud moments, and enough acidic humour to keep me chuckling after the credits roll - more than I can say for Two and a Half Men and their ilk. I liked that I didn't know any of the actors too, star vehicles are tedious affairs. I loved Arrested Development, and while I don't accept that this is a rehash or replacement of that show, I do see some similarities. It is intelligently written, it's different, and I hope that people give it a chance, before writing it off, just because it isn't what we're used to.

I was floored by this film, having seen it without having heard of it before. Like other reviewers here, I noticed the similarity to Magnolia, but since that is possibly my favourite film of all time, I am unlikely to see that as a negative! I was amazed that it was a directorial debut.

What impressed me initially was the acting. The smallest exchanges were given a gravitas that I find too often missing from 'drama' movies, where only the 'Oscar moments' are performed and filmed with such visible care. It seemed to me like a series of vignettes, that even on their own, outside of the greater context of the film, felt important and special, and carried messages. I thought Chris Bridges (Ludicris) was great, and both Don Cheadle and Matt Dillon turned in complex and brave performances.

Any film that makes me laugh aloud and burst into tears is powerful to me, because I think it's really hard for a film-maker to do both convincingly. Some of the dialogues were sharply witty, and yet didn't come off as smug. The emotional high points weren't forced or clichéd (well, with the possible exception of the little girl : 'I will protect you Daddy' - but who cares, I was bawling at that point anyway!), and when it was done, I was left feeling incredibly moved by some of the most powerful scenes.

I do think the film will receive some criticism for what will be perceived as overt 'worthiness' or politically correctness, and I can see why in a sense, because there is just a hint of white middle class guilt edging in. However, I really couldn't see how this could have been done with a lighter touch, without losing the significance. To me it was about compromise more than just racism or corruption, how we all get chipped away at every day, and at some point we have to take responsibility for it, and change it or let it go on. There was redemption, but at a price, and even the ending, which had the teensiest whiff of cheese about it, left me smiling :) Oh, great soundtrack too.

This was an embarrassment to Morgan Freeman, who must surely be wishing he hadn't bothered. From the question of why a gang of professional enforcers got the crap kicked out of ALL of them twice in one afternoon as a prelude to being shot and left for dead, to the lame ass plot hole of the flashing red light, to the high school girl who looked like a 40 year old marketing exec wearing braces, being so eager to snog a middle-aged beaten-up simpleton, to the jaw-dropping idiocy of a blind man pointing out people in photographs, to the cringemaking mix of accents, to the portrayal of Glasgow as some sort of post-modern Rome, I was utterly at a loss. Also I am sick to death of Bob Hoskins trotting out the same old tired, gravelly-voiced cockney gangster stereotype all his career. Just a teensy bit of professional pride mate?

Anything I say in this review is probably redundant, because there isn't a single negative review in all the comments so far here, and I agree wholeheartedly with what has been said by other reviewers.

Nevertheless Hotel Rwanda is that rare kind of movie experience that doesn't easily relinquish its hold on the audience just because the credits have rolled. Watching with a friend, after ten minutes we had to pause the film because we decided we would be better served if we were more informed about what the basic facts of the conflict in Rwanda were. So to my shame, we had to read on the internet about what really happened, before we could continue. I say shame because we should have known, both of us were of an age when it happened to have taken more of an interest in world politics.

The film is beautifully understated, eschewing sentimentality in favour of raw emotion and letting the story tell itself. The acting was flawless - Don Cheadle's breathtaking performance being a particular standout - and the direction didn't falter, despite all the potential pitfalls of dramatising a recent and horrific conflict. The scenes which were hardest to watch in terms of tension and violence were often suffused with humour and hope.

It's difficult sometimes to separate the significance of the true story, from the artistry of the product, and often I get impatient with 'worthy' movies scoring big at Oscar time because it seems as though important stories ought to be rewarded, whether or not they make good films. However, I can't recall being so profoundly moved by a film since I saw The Grey Zone, and I hope Hotel Rwanda gets all the plaudits it deserves.

I just saw Alexander and while I am admittedly known for my bile-spattered, vitriolic rants on movies I hate, this one takes the prize turkey for being a sheer embarrassment to Greeks, history buffs, movie fans and all people with an IQ just above that of toaster scrapings.

I thought Troy was fairly dull, but Alexander is the entertainment equivalent of being lulled to sleep by having your skull repeatedly rammed into the side of a whale. Not sharply painful but after about 5 minutes, REALLY f***ing annoying.

For some reason the entire movie is spoken in broad Irish accents, the like of which I have heard only twice before, once when I was in Dublin, and once in Gangs Of New York. It's as if Farrell was too lazy or talentless to fake an American accent (forget Greek, I no longer look for actual realism in movies) so they just told Jared Leto and Val Kilmer to do Irish ones. I defy you not to just stare in slack-jawed wonder as they make a discussion of the Macedonian dominance of Persia sound like a coffee morning with the Lucky Charms leprechauns.

The acting is genuinely poor, I can't even think of an appropriately scathing epithet to describe the feeble efforts of actors whose reputations scarcely match the pitiful performances here. Colin Farrell is cringeworthy, blubbing like a 13 year old girl auditioning for Our Town, whenever anyone dies. Couldn't he have come up with some sort of emotional expression beyond petulance? He seems to have only two registers, whispering and bellowing, and even his shouting somehow fails to rouse. 'RIDE MACEDONIANS, RIDE!' tapers off into a squeaky croak that I doubt the person behind him could hear, much less 50 000 thundering riders.

His shouted pre-battle speeches are so like those in Gladiator, Braveheart, Troy and LOTR that they are beyond clichéd, and cant really be blamed on his simpering, affected acting, but during the sex scene where he actually appears to be softly barking like a dog at his psychotic wife (where is it documented that she tried to murder him on their wedding night??) I just gave up in disgust.

The movie has too much voice-over narration (I'd guess about 30 minutes plus of the whole movie is nothing but Anthony Hopkins talking) and far too little story. I was left asking 'Yes but why did he do this, or who was that, or what was the plan here?' while I was subjected to what seemed like hours of male bonding, as Alexander and his buddies all lay around chatting, arguing and watching belly dancers. How did all this add up to $150 million?

If you are interested in history, don't waste your time on this movie, get a book instead. If you like epic battle scenes á la LOTR, you will be grievously disappointed as both scenes in Alexander are abruptly truncated, blurry and consist mainly of watching Farrell's meaty thighs wrapped round a horse, while he rides past a quarter of a million fighters presumably doing things I'd rather watch than what I'm actually being shown.

Angelina Jolie, who I normally would happily watch changing a light bulb, does bugger all but sit around sulking and whining in a Bride of Dracula accent (kudos for her though for presumably refusing to attend the Irish Dialect Workshop with the others)

I could find nothing of merit in this film, not even the breathtaking shots of the Hindu Kush, because even then I've seen photography as impressive in TV documentaries.

It has all of the cinematic charm of watching the Hulk (ie NONE), but without the cool special effects.

I sort of watched 50 First Dates this morning, while i was waiting for laundry to finish. I say 'sort of' because i loathed it so much after the first 10 minutes that i watched in horrified fascination for 30 minutes and then, feeling slightly queasy, skipped through the rest in 5 minute chunks just to see how this heinous festival of suckage could possibly be brought to a conclusion that hadn't made it famous throughout the known universe as the most cringe worthy waste of celluloid since ..well..actually the last Adam Sandler film.

Only 'Little Nicky' was worse than this, though I cant say for sure because I never made it past the first 20 minutes of that, (the part where it was deemed hysterical to have breasts growing on someone's head) after realising life was too precious to waste on such compellingly awful dross.

I hesitate to dignify '50 First Dates' by analysing it, even for the purpose of this commentary, because analysis seems to somehow to endorse its poorly executed and insultingly simple minded premise.

From the opening scene where Henry is seen to be a opportunistic wide boy and congenital liar who has abundant and casual sex with any tourist stupid enough to fall for his drooling halfwit persona: 'Uh, I'm a ..ya know..uh..secret agent, so I cant see you again', I assumed he would get his come-uppance and learn the error of his ways in a predictable retribution/redemption scenario. Unfortunately this was not to be, as he is in fact rewarded for being a shallow dullard by winning the ever-so-cute mental patient of his dreams.

Some notable scenes which provoked uneasy gastric reminders of my breakfast were when he punishes his co-worker for eating his roast beef sandwich by asking her to put her face next to a walrus's mouth and makes it vomit over her; when his horrendous Hawaiian stereotyped surfing, pothead buddy dresses up as the aforementioned mental patient cutie by wearing a mop head as a wig and a coconut bra and licks his coconut 'nipples' for no apparent reason than to make a cinema audience of 11 year old boys snicker; when an entire ward of brain damaged patients fall about laughing because someone mentions the phrase 'wet dreams'.

Why did her good natured, steroid-taking brother need to have a lisp? Why did his friend need to be blind? Why were all the Hawaiian women clinically obese? It smacked of 'Let's all laugh at the freaks' schoolboy humour, devoid of wit, style, kindness or relevance. Why did a random character on a beach, whom we hadn't met before, and never met again, suddenly snicker and say 'I have to go for a tinkle'. Were they THAT hard up for dialogue?

I normally would have gone about my business after this talentless garbage was over - after all its not as if i paid to see it. But I logged onto IMDb to see if other people had been similarly appalled, and instead found pages of praise! This naturally enraged me enough to attempt a tiny redressing of the balance. Anyone with an IQ higher than that of cheese should really not see this movie. Its too late for me - but save yourselves!

I really like Hugh Laurie, as an actor and as a writer, so i eagerly watched the pilot of House, and it was disappointing, for the most part - anyone expecting the drama of ER or the emotion of hospital dramas like Chicago Hope will be disappointed.

What astonished me was the grimly mangled American accent Hugh Laurie chose, or was forced, to adopt for the role. I am English and even I can tell the accent is hopelessly fake. I was willing to accept that he needed an American accent to appeal to the American audience, but then one of the co-stars (Jesse Spencer) is Australian and keeps his accent, so why hire Laurie and then make him sound like an Eton schoolboy slaughtering lines from A Streetcar Named desire?

The writing is clunky, with some unforgiveably clichéd lines ('I am a doctor; when doctors make mistakes, people die') The medical mysteries were intriguing enough to keep me watching this episode, though I am not locked in for the next episode, which should be the main objective of a pilot.

The trouble here is that the hook is supposedly Dr. House's much-vaunted grouchiness, and lack of a bedside manner, despite being a brilliant diagnostician. Yet he caves in rather humbly to the first two people who put demands on him - his colleague with a sick cousin, and his boss. He seems personable and far too approachable to make us believe he is a gruff and unsympathetic genius. At one point he chuckles 'Cool, huh?', sounding for all the world like Bill or Ted, as he explains a technique to his team, which, incidentally consists of a black man, a woman and the Australian. Tokenism for trying to hit as many demographic buttons as possible is just lazy casting.

All in all, I would watch another episode if i had nothing better to do, but i won't be looking out for it.