Reviews

I like Cameron Diaz, and Jude Law. I went to see this with my America girlfriend and a good mate in Los Angeles and it certainly made me feel homesick. And also a little sick on the schmaltz. The film worked really well although there were some parts where I felt it was dragging along, Eli Wallach and the kids in the tent, and it got very saccharine sweet in those parts too. But they are just small points. Jude Law came across as very human indeed and so did Jack Black. One of the best parts is that I know both L.A and the villages of Shere, Gomshall and Godalming, where the English scenes were filmed. And because of the film, I took my lady friend from Texas to the pub in Shere where Cameron waited for Jude by the open fire - and it is truly is beautiful at Christmas time. Schmaltz or no schmaltz, it's a lovely film to watch curled up by your own fire in the midst of winter.

I liked Casino Royale and I like Daniel Craig as James Bond. He adds a rawness that coiffed Pierce Brosnan never could. But, is it me or are the Bond Girls getting rougher? Where's the glamour, the stunning beauty of the scenes? Lake Garda, Siena, two beautiful spots totally ignored. I wanted to watch the movie because I had read it was filmed in Lake Garda where I used to live. If I hadn't known the arches round the lake where the car chase took place, it might as well have been anywhere. And what was that chase about? Chopping and changing scenes like I was on a boat in the high seas did nothing to keep my attention. Did I care about the agent in Cuba? No. Did I care about the major criminal? No. (who was it?) Did I care about Bond himself? No. He had become a killing machine like the Terminator. Even the music was a hash, though I can understand this since Amy Winehouse pulled out last minute. Judi Dench always adds acting class and that's really all I remember. I hate seeing things being blown up for no reason and the last scenes felt like it was done just for the sake of it. Instantly forgettable plot. Hint to action film directors: let the action happen as if it is happening to the viewer. Have a plot. Resist the snazzy camera angles and stop filming so close up.

Usually going to James Bond is an cinematographic event. It's a shame this was just explosions and bad editing. Perhaps the next movie will be better.

Given that the entire series is written by one man, as is often the case in British comedies, this is a good show that hearkens back to a Britain we are fast losing. Hyacinth is very funny when she lets her 'working class' roots show, though I find it difficult to believe in Richard being such a wimp. Daisy, Rose and Onslow are very funny as is Josephine Tewson, though a lot of the scenes do become tiresome and some characters are just plain irritating (the vicar scenes, Daddy going missing) It is a good job all the characters are played by quality actors as this prevents the show getting stale. If you want a glimpse of Britain and a harmless, good natured laugh, this is the show. I know many of my American friends like to hold candlelight parties because of it.

It's not easy to write comedy nowadays with so many people claiming some sort of 'injury' from a comment or remark, and I guess the show does indeed show us the state of Britain today. What more can be said about that? Yet, sadly, we now seem to have humour that is cruel, hurtful, crass, and basically unfunny - all the things levelled at humour in the 70s by right-on alternative comedians (the 70s humour was gentle, cheeky, and genuinely engaging as well as funny) Many scenes in Little Britain are distasteful or meant for shock value. I'm all for non-PC shows, if there is genuine humour, and whilst in Little Britain there are some good moments - mainly Tom Baker's voice-over comments - much is repeated and the lines are just not funny. Mainly because I find most of the characters loathsome,,,(rather like that ghastly Catherine Tate's schoolgirl) I'm sorry but David Walliams constantly dressed as a woman feels somewhat creepy too. Not the worst show but I can't see why it's deserving of all those plaudits; maybe because there's a paucity of good comedy nowadays.

What a disappointment. This idea of teleporting or translocation for a movie has been around a long time and could have looked at the immense ramifications, consequences, insights the use of a power like this might have. In short, it could have examined the benefits and spiritual dimensions and possibilities of our Universe. In fact, it addressed none of these things. There was no story, no explanations,no identification with anybody, (except Millie) and no arc. Who these people were was never explained, why they were being chased and hunted wasn't either other than the fact these advanced beings who could be anywhere whenever they chose to be had the social enlightenment and humanity of a flea. So if they weren't gods, demons...what were they? Could a mother act as coldly as his did? Very bad storyline, a cascade of cgi and an argument between two guys that was thrown in for no purpose. Certainly a picture for the computer game players but a most uninspiring story. Hayden is cute though.

I remember seeing this in the cinema when it first came out. It is a lame version of the St TRINIANS films as were released in the fifties, but it had Frankie Howerd and Dora Bryan, among my favourites. The sad thing is they just don't make these sort of films any more,. True, ribald,funny British films. Just like Will Hay, the Carry On Films and Maragret Rutherford films: no politically correct nonsense, no fears of misinterpretation of paedophilia, no forced representation of different cultural groups, just good old British fun like a good dollop of treacle pudding with custard. People just took more responsibility for stuff back then without complaining about every damn thing!. That's why I like this film - that and of an England we are sadly losing! The film itself does get very boring when they are racing up and down the tracks but it is well done and I can recognise some of the places.

I love Carry On...it is typically British humour that is now drowning under the weight of trendy Ben Eltonish style, politically correct and hurtful humour. As a Carry on film, Carry On Cleo is the best of the lot. It just works and if you like bawdy humour and double entendres (which is what English humour has always been about - playing with words) then this film is for you. I was surprised to hear that many Americans have an affection for British humour because of its intelligence. The thing about Carry On is that it was cheeky, lowbrow stuff delivered and performed by intelligent people and some of our best-loved actors and actresses - which elevated the whole series to a higher status and is deservedly termed "classic."

Having met with the writer I can appreciate the hell he had to go through to get his idea produced. Interminable re-writes and deadlines, actors coming and going, directors who don't want to merely tell a story as an unobtrusive observer but who want to show off the camera-work, and an entire third act of the film shot after it had been finished, and you have the reasons why this is probably less than it could have been.

An extraordinary premise where the unlikely event of a husband and wife killing team are totally unaware of each other's 'job'; a hidden set of weapons hidden in the kitchen somehow totally unbeknownst to hubby, and a cold, cynical couple of characters who we are somehow supposed to feel something for glamorising assassination and you have the reasons for the downfall of the Hollywood industry.

How brain-dead do you have to be to like this stuff? Just shooting a blowing up things is interminably destructive to the human psyche...it's boring and unchallenging. This makes for the suspension of credibility in any relationship these two stars were trying to portray.

I cannot see at all what is sexy about Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. They are the coldest, most unemotional representatives on the screen and I could quite see the pair of them plotting each other's demise even if they weren't playing characters in a film. They look great but where's the compassion in any of their films? I really wanted to see the film based upon all the recommendations that were made to me, but I couldn't get through the mind-numbing nonsense of it all.

This delightful film, which the Spanish seem to excel at making, just looks at a section of life of two teenage boys sharing a summer together. Good friends, they are at an age where their hormones dictate what they are doing and Nico, who thinks he's much more macho and attractive than he is, wants to lose his virginity before he reaches 17. Very cute Dani likes his friend's company and like many teenage boys discovering their sexuality, these two masturbate each other when female company is lacking. However, two girls Elena and Berta turn up at the beautiful little coastal town and Nico's interest is piqued. Dani, who feels a deep attraction for his friend wants to spend more time with Nico and resents the interference of the girls presence. It's a summer of learning and acceptance for him that he is gay. The acting is superb, so natural and human. Many European films capture this humanity that American films find it difficult to do, because the latter are generally ruled by making money, not for the art form. In Nico and Dani no judgments are ever made, no sensitivities hidden or prejudices espoused, just the sincere and objective exploration of the human condition shown as natural as it occurs in life. People are people, not ridiculous super-heroes in contrived situations. There is also a maturity in European films, with excellent acting that draws you to believe these things are really happening, and the audience is expected to be a mature one too. It's a fresh, happy little film, well photographed and the subject matter intelligently handled. I recommend it.

Good looking groom-to-be Gale is living with a dumpy arrogant twit of a boyfriend who is not looking forward to being 'married' on the very day of his 'wedding'. Seems a bit late to have left it and quite honestly he deserves not to be married. What Gale is doing with this guy is hard to fathom. Bad script, a dialogue of swear words and characters I couldn't care a fig for, meant that the DVD went straight back into the packet. A shame really because there was so much potential to the film. The families could have been made more sympathetic to the audience, their characters developed in the context of the wedding itself, rather than before the wedding, which didn't tell us who was who and where they fitted in. Bad acting added to the boredom.

Firstly, I am not quite sure what the issue of circumcision is. This is mainly an American abberation (under the pretension that it is more hygienic to be circumcised and is practised as a matter of course there) In Europe, it is usually performed only if it presents a problem to the individual man (eg. cases of phemosis for example) That aside, I enjoyed the naturalness of the film. I have no problem with human nudity and don't understand why anyone gets upset about it and besides Gregori is quite a cutie. The galling thing was the philosophical chat and the human rights dialogue which destroyed the whole essence of the film..basically the relationships between the members of the faculty. I would also like to have seen more raw emotion from Emeline and Paul when they witness their respective partners cheating on them. Agnes, one screwed up woman who lives in the fantasies of her head, annoyed the hell out of me (though she looked fabulous), but the story really belongs to Paul- and given what he had to do in the film, did admirably.

Daniel Craig..I salute you. The hard-nut style works perfectly as Bond (whom I've always seen as a sophisticated SAS-type, comfortable in his skin for the work he has to do, intelligent and culturally well-travelled). Pierce Brosnan never filled that role for me, he was too well-coiffed and perfumed.

Daniel Craig looks like he will rip your head off if necessary, and yet look entirely at home in the Casino - because this sort of risk-taker would be! And a true Blond Englishman to boot - that's a real Englishman in my book.

With his piercing, steely blue eyes, rugged, streetwise attitude and rugby-player build, he entirely took over the role of a credible Bond. I would want this sort of man protecting my Government interests. And his sexy transformation in the sophistication of his dress suit worked perfectly. Yet, underneath the hard exterior, their emanates a complex emotional person and Daniel portrayed this perfectly, too. He looked like he was hurt and beaten...human, not super hero.

The film chases round the world as usual - yes, maybe for the sake of just the pretty locations, but it did make us feel like spies ourselves.

I thought the quick recovery from a poison was a bit of a stretch and I didn't like the Venice scenes of a Palazzo collapsing (how did the British Government get out of that one?) but for sheer spectacle the crane jumping scene, however implausible, worked the audience into a dizzying start to the film.

The casino scenes were beautiful and of the right length to involve us. Eva Green left me cold, but at least it felt like a real liaison (not that I was ever convinced Bond had fallen for her)

All that was needed was a less jarring score to the film along the lines of 'You only live twice' or 'Diamonds are Forever' and I would have given a ten.

That said, there is at last, a Bond that fits the original mould and one that, as a Brit, I can feel proud of.

An exercise in self-indulgence, this film will give those who think multi-culturalism is NOT a good thing confirmation of such. Each culture should just stay in their own place and not bring their customs down onto another society- that appears to be the message in this long drawn out, pointless and rather sobering film.

A film in which every participant made the wrong choices, and suffered consequently; a film in which there was an absurd link between the father of a Japanese girl with a huge psychological problem and two young Moroccan boys who used the rifle their father had been given by the Japanese man when he was on a hunting expedition and shot the wife of an American couple on a tour bus. This same couple had thoughtlessly (selfishly?) left their young children with a Mexican lady while they took their trip to Morocco and expected the lady not to go to her own son's wedding. She goes anyway and takes the children who are then witness to traditions which, in this film, showed up as third-world shenanigans passing for culture in that country. Why Brad Pitt's family went through such trauma is unaccountable, but things happen when the wrong energy is sent out. Why Brad Pitt became involved with this dire film at all is also a mystery, unless it was packaged to him in a different way, owed someone a favour or got paid lots of money.

Humanity at its worst. A ghastly film that left a despairing taste in the mouth.

A screenplay obviously written by Tony Blair's henchman, the film shows how in seven days in September, Downing Street saved the Monarchy from itself. It is true that he read the mood of the country well and, in his early days of premiership, counselled Her Majesty responsibly. But the supposition that he alone was responsible (along with a well-crafted speech from his slimy PR man)for saving the Family from its demise is a little too far-fetched, even if it shows typically how Blair's Government machine works. What he did do, however, is translate the people's considerations into action and that is admirable. The ghastliness of his wife, Cherie Blair, who would like to see the destruction of everything British, is admirably shown and Alastair is excellently portrayed. The Queen Mum comes across as a bit of a drunk, Prince Phillip as a selfish nincompoop (well, that is true to form) but it is the towering performance of Helen Mirren as the Queen herself that gives the viewer the impression that we are indeed seeing the Queen. I remember at the time feeling angry at the Monarchy and thinking that the Royal Household was indeed an anachronism for the 21st Century. I wanted Diana as my Queen and felt that she had breathed a breath of fresh air into the Establishment. But the more Tony Blair's Government has tried insidiously to destroy the wonderfully-performing Institutions of the Country in the guise of modernising them (through his party's resentment of them) the more I feel sorry for the Queen and wish she still had the power to tell him where to go. Helen Mirren performed her job so well I felt that she had embraced all those feelings I felt, and indeed the Queen herself must have felt, at a time when it was seen the Windsors could get nothing right. Let us remember it was public anger at Prince Charles' adultery and the family's treatment of Diana that caused the resentful public feelings and not just the Queen per se. Nobody really came out of the film unscathed (except for the irritating Blair - beautifully played by Mr.Sheen) and indeed it was an expose of what happens when immovable tradition meets current day mores.

I adore the Eurovision Song Contest. It is the only time that all European countries get together to participate in TV together. Especially since Jeux sans Frontieres ended. I wish we had more continental programmes in the UK as well as the constsant stream of American ones. Maybe we would realise and appreciate our own European heritage more instead of thinking we're a 51st State.

However, 2006's competition felt like MTV instead of a competition. Since the Eastern European and Nordic countries just vote for each other it has ruined the 'feel' of the competition. So too has the fact that everyone sings in English, the most stupid songs are submitted just for effect (ok, they always were odd songs but at least they were songs). I used to love the orchestras too, which doesn't happen anymore and in 2006 the tour of the countries for the results just zoomed past.

The old countries no longer seem to register on the scale as all the smaller new additions vote for themselves. It did get boring and everything sounded tinny and off-key.

I hope there is an improvement next year, but as everyone sings in English now it doesn't feel European enough...I used to like the songs sung in their own language...again, this was changed because the Nordic and Slavic languages are so harsh..

Of course, I hope the contest continues but keeps its sense of European-ness...instead of an MTV contest.

I went to see Heath Ledger in Casanova last night for Valentine's night as there was a special showing. Having seen Heath in Brokeback I was interested to see how he conveyed the character here. Well, he was far more foppish and camp than his cowboy and must have just glided through the film. He said himself it was a doddle after the intensity of BBM and it shows...hardly any acting required. The film is humorous, it has some good moments but hardly conveyed the lifestyle of Venice's celebrated Lethario. Having once lived in Venice, it was nice to see it transformed to 1753, but Heath must be laughing up his sleeve.

As usual in every other film made, everything turns out for the best and we know that everyone will get the person they are supposed to be with. Sienna Miller does a good job with her role, but I'm sorry, the only REAL kiss I've seen on screen is between Heath and Jake Gyllenhaal.

As a screenwriter, how I wish I could have written this film. From the deepest part of me this is a beautiful, beautiful masterpiece which has been wrenching at my gut for days. It has left me with the thoughts 'why didn't he say this? Why didn't this happen?..but ultimately the only consideration is: 'if only they could have been together, which is what both men wanted.' How deeply I felt for Jack who, despite all his efforts, cannot realise his simplest dreams. (not even in death when his old man refuses to send his ashes to Brokeback)

It is criminal how humanity treats what is the most divine thing of all: love (no matter between which adults) and how it has been turned into something salacious by certain individuals. eg. the religious right in America who really glory in making everyone feel miserable sinners and who believe people have to live the way they have chosen to. Nor should they be allowed to dictate how this love should be depicted on screen -so 10 points to Ang Lee for his refreshing honesty.

I also applaud a film which shows real men, as it happens in real life and not stereotypically versions of camp gays. It might be uncomfortable for the straight men among us, but why should it be? These are serious flaws in society that need to be examined once and for all. I find it all the more difficult to understand those that have given one star - we're all different, I know, and sometimes a film speaks to you and sometimes it doesn't but in this case I can only assume they have closed their hearts they have been indoctrinated by the MTV 10 sec pop-blurb sort of film where you need the concentration span of a fly. (What is revealing is the anger they have inside)

I have spoken to nearly all my male friends, straight and gay, and all have said they have experienced a love and longing for, maybe, their best mate, that they might never have expressed or else a deep regret that it was never taken further. In the film we are talking soul-love here, spiritual love which, when it cannot be denied, will spill over into true physical expression. This impression is shown admirably in the strength of two wonderful performances of the actors Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal. One, more accepting and braver to ignore what others might think to experience the only happiness he has with Ennis, the other deeply hurt as a young man and thrashing about internally trying to come to terms with the desire to just follow Jack on his path but not allowing himself to (his inner mind's thoughts and criticisms that really belong to others weighing him down) He knows he is happy with Jack, he knows that he would want to be with Jack because love is an energy and transcends the two protagonists; it's a soul mate thing. Not for one moment did I think about the sexuality of these actors or of the characters they portrayed, I just saw two men's love for one another. And what is the utter beauty of the film is a complex story told so simply in the most natural of surroundings. It convinces, it causes you to feel your own emotions and ultimately this film works so perfectly; it is so heart-rending because I, myself, have been there.