colinmetcalfe Reviews

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

Weak plot and uninspired characterisations betrays special effects and cinematography

[5/10 · 10 May 2017]

I've been put off writing this review for many years because I feared it would turn out to be a negative pile of invective directed against a man whose work I have largely admired for many years. Now though I've mellowed and with the film coming up to 20 years old and there being already more than 2000 reviews already on this website I'm confident nobody is going to waste time reading this review anyway.

So, what can you say about the first 25 minutes? Probably the finest piece of action film making ever. This opening ruined every war film I saw before and every war film I've seen since; nothing comes close (apart from BoB of course). Exceptional! And for me that is the strange thing about this film – part of it fills me with rapture, while other parts make me cringe and irritated.

But let's get onto the story. Well I'm no military expert but sending a handful of men, some of them high value experienced soldiers, out into the French countryside to find a Unit with a certain individual in it – well I'm not sure I buy it. No, the story is weak and disappoints, as do the over familiar characterisations.

Alright then we move onto the inevitable, and the source of all the carping from all the other non-US reviewers of this film - the lack of representatives from other allied nations. Well the answer the great man gave is very much the same as many defenders of this film provide on this website – that this is a war film concentrating on the US sectors and their German adversaries. Sounds reasonable enough – doesn't it? It's also sound film making as well as keeping it simple ensures audiences don't get confused with all those different uniforms and dodgy accents.

The only problem, well only if historical accuracy of real events bothers you, is that Historians tell us the demarcation between the sectors wasn't that clear cut. As James Holland of CNN states by quoting the actual resources provided respectively by the US and the British, if you were a GI there was a very good chance you would leave the English coast in a British Royal Naval vessel. You would more than likely transfer into a British Royal Naval Landing craft. If you needed air support it would be almost definitely provided by the British Royal Air Force or Royal Canadian Air Force. While the night time air drops apparently deposited paratroopers all over the place and not necessarily where they should be. (Remember, this was the reason given for not knowing where Ryan was.) The statistics tell us this, these are facts. So, although it is possible a 'Yank' could fail to encounter a 'Limey', 'Canook', or 'Free French' on June 6th 1944, it would be very unlikely.

I'm reminded of an interview the great man did to promote the film in the UK for the BBC. When he was challenged about this point he gave the example of 'The Dambusters' as a British war film that just concentrated on the double header of Brits versus Germans. Sorry 'Steve' not a great example. Unfortunately the young interviewer either didn't know his war films or didn't fancy irritating his esteemed interviewee.

The Dambusters features Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, and Rhodesians along with the English/Welsh/Scots/Irish. There's a scene where they are selecting crews for the mission when Colin Todd, as Guy Gibson, exclaims: "Hang on, don't forget the English!" Even the jingoistic extravaganza that was the 1969 film 'The Battle of Britain' included a Polish fighter squadron in recognition of the brave and resolute contribution they made to the defence of the UK.

There is also a plot problem with omitting allies from the story in that you have nobody to portray as inferior, incompetent, and cowardly (tick as appropriate) to compare with your own brave square jawed heroes (Think: The Hurt Locker and those useless Brit mercenaries). You don't want your enemy appearing pathetic, evil yes, but they have to be a worthwhile foe to legitimise the struggle towards victory. So this film tries to get around this restriction by including a dig at the British General Montgomery, the overall planner of Operation Overlord (D-Day), but not a man universally popular even within his own nation.

While it is entirely realistic that troops from one Army criticise the performance of another the way it is done here – out of the blue exposition and with no supporting evidence, exposes this line for what it actually is: a cheap shot.

So perhaps these facts explain why many reviewers have been disappointed about others nations' exclusion. In order to allow US audiences to identify with the film, and others around the world (Some French and Germans both have their own reasons for depreciating the role of the British, but that's another contentious point!), history has been bent for commercial purposes to produce what looks to some (including me), a mean spirited and self-centred production.

This film gets so many things right, and gets them excellently 'right' so the areas where they get things wrong stand out as really, really wrong; and that is the chief problem with this film. It goes to great trouble and expense to present realistic events and situations for certain parts of the film, but in other parts it is lazy and dismissive.

I wonder if Mr Spielberg was ever the slightest bit bothered by this international hoo-hah? I wonder on cold winter evenings when he's at home polishing his 'Knight of the British Empire Medal' for taking advantage of the lower production costs in the UK, erm I mean services to the British film industry, he feels the slightest bit guilty. Of course not, that is a ridiculous image; cast it from your minds immediately. He will have a professional come in and polish all of his awards!

Taxi (III) (2015)

Interesting for us foreigners!

[7/10 · 15 December 2015]

I've never heard of Mr Panahi before this film, had no idea as to the state of Iranian film making and had never seen an Iranian film before. That's why I went, chiefly.

And I'm glad I did, although towards the end I did feel time started to drag a little. Because even though the later characters were just as interesting and entertaining as the first ones, to me the expositional technique used in the same location can feel a little claustrophobic and monotonous after a while.

As the film progresses you get little snapshots of passengers lives, outlook and opinions. And there is a crowd pleasing little star in the shape of the director/driver's 'pretty little niece' (her description). Her encounter with the street boy is charming although for me, could have benefited from a stronger resolution.

The story that really intrigued me though was when the driver's old friend gets into the taxi and we hear about his harrowing experience and the forthcoming lack of justice. Would have liked to have drilled down more into this to examine his motives behind not seeking revenge or retribution, but it isn't that type of film and so it was onto the next character.

So a rewarding experience although I viewed it as much an education as a piece of entertainment.

Albatross (2011)

Another film having a reasonable story spoilt by pandering to a specific audience.

[6/10 · 24 January 2015]

This film isn't a stinker, far from it. I was entertained. It was professionally made. Visually it was lovely and the performances were fine but something still grated with me.

For example can someone please tell me why does Emelia start an affair with Jonathan? He's not charming or wealthy, he's boring, has let his looks fade, he's lazy and stuck in the past and it turns out he can't even provide good sex! And don't say the little white sports car; this girl is drawn as too ballsy to fall for that. Yet this vivacious beautiful young woman greets his first advances seemingly with an almost casual: 'yeah alright then.'

Let's go through the possibilities:

Starved of male company – no she has a boyfriend her own age and almost as feckless as she is.

It's a 'The hand that rocks the cradle' plot line – obviously not as the story pans out differently.

She's looking for a father figure after losing hers at a young age – possibly but aren't these relationships born out of love, admiration, respect? How can you respect someone who on first meeting you catch them masturbating? In fact he has no redeeming qualities at all until almost the last scene in the film. Couldn't he at least of been charming? Bit of a cliché I know but it would understandable why she fell for him. (Is fell the right word? Because she didn't really - she just progressed into having an affair.)

So if it not clear why she does this, then the rest of the film will go about telling you – right? No not to me, but if it's there and I missed it I apologise. As far as I can see the story proceeds traditionally, both young girls absorbing each other's worlds and developing because of it.

The only conclusion I can come to is that it was prerequisite to have negative male characters throughout the film and boy have we got a few. From the pedantic and sleazy room guests to the arrogant snobbish undergraduate there is isn't one positive male character, save Emelia's Grandfather who isn't a central figure and is he really positive? Colluding in the great deception that eventually shatters her bond with her best friend?

I'm interested to find out whether the original script contained the elements above that I'm whining about or had to be inserted, at the producer's request (in order to find an audience), during the 'development' stage.

This is one of the problems facing the British film industry – they don't have the luxury of simply telling a good engrossing story – they have to try and guarantee an audience to backers by aiming it fairly and squarely at a specific audience. What's that I hear? All movie makers have to find an audience. Very true but as many fine film makers have demonstrated you can find an audience without spoiling the story and pandering to needs of a select group.

Last Passenger (2013)

Manages to be completely ridiculous at the same time as being completely entertaining!

[7/10 · 2 September 2014]

As a few other reviewers have said once it gets going it's a great ride and I agree. At first I was put off by the first few scenes featuring Scott and Tointon, they seemed stilted, a bit wooden even. She flirts with him from the off, which is of course what all beautiful professional women do on London commuter trains – flirt with total strangers!

Of course I'm forgetting he tells her he is a doctor and has a little boy with him (I must try that then) but it still seemed too simple, too straightforward, almost as if they wanted to create their relationship immediately and get it out of the way, which, when it's two of your main protagonists I think is a mistake.

The other characters are a bit 'cut out and keep' as well and I didn't really see the point of Lesley Duncan, she seemed to be solely there to die!

Everything else though that other reviewers seemed to be unhappy about: the undisclosed motives of the hijacker; incorrect rolling stock features; the fact that it was set in 2004, didn't bother me at all. Although I must confess I chuckled when the fire extinguisher was supposed to have blown that great big hole in the train floor. In reality it would have probably ruptured at one point and then whizzed around the cabin mutilating the cast!

Also the magic show - really? In that situation? C'mon, but as I said I went with it all and enjoyed the whole ridiculous hokum.

Also should have won the award for 'the best special effects on a small budget' (if such an award exists!).

Senna (2010)

Another case of chasing the Yankee dollar

[5/10 · 5 May 2014]

Although I'm a paid up petrol head I put off buying this DVD until I saw it at a knock down price in a supermarket. The reason being I was sceptical it would be anything but an in-depth look at the character of an extraordinary sportsman. That is chiefly because I noted the UK producers were Working Title, a successful British production company, but also one with a reputation of taking non-American stories and americanising them for greater profit abroad. I'm not criticising them for that but it sort of underpins my feelings about this film.

I found it a curious experience watching this film and sort of difficult to explain, but let me try by saying imagine a film about a legendary driver in the US's favourite motor sport NASCAR where say most of the narration was provided by a non NASCAR loving nation say the UK, and the presence of the host nation had been reduced to almost non-existent. Confused? Let me again try to help you out. In the opening sequences and throughout the film Senna talks or is described as moving to Europe to further his driving career. Well since all of the teams he drove for in all formulas were British couldn't they be a bit more specific and say the UK? I wouldn't visit Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Salvador and Belo Horizonte and say I visited South America, I'd try and narrow it down a bit and say I visited Brazil!

Please don't get me wrong I'm not some flag waving nationalist with union jacks tattooed all over my body but as soon as I heard this I knew where exactly this film was going. In films aimed at mass appeal there is only room for two nations, two warring groups, and since Senna was Brazilian (the good guy) and the French had been chosen as the bad guys there was no need to go confusing things – so Europe it was!

That brings me onto the disgraceful way Alain Prost was treated in the film. He was never my favourite driver, but he didn't deserve this carve up. All that was missing was a black cape and a fiendish moustache! But he is French and so fair game for the majority of the American viewing public. Take the needless scene of Prost being verbally abused by race goers at the Brazilian GP (handily translated into English, just to make sure we all know he is a 'Cheese eating surrender monkey!') Formula One is historically a European and South American sport and we shouldn't treat our former champions like that not even when we are prostituting ourselves for the American audience. I suppose an audience that was assessed as having no interest in learning that by the time the average driver makes it into Formula One they have all stuck knifes into peoples' backs and lots of other dirty tricks besides.

'Saint Senna's' real character was only touched on when in one of the few honest scenes in the film he considers his own mortality after Martin Donnelly's awful crash, but we hear nothing about his 'game of death' with Martin Brundle in a Formula Three season (after one encounter Senna ended up parking his car on Brundle's head!). Or the revealing episode when he vetoed Lotus hiring Derek Warwick because he didn't want the team to split their resources between two top drivers, (surely a dirty trick only those nasty French people would do?). Of course in dramas when establishing character you can't provide a 360 perspective – you've got to have your good guys and your bad guys, but this isn't a drama, it's documentary about a racing drama – so couldn't we have been a little more honest? My biggest surprise regarding this film is the praise it has received from the F1 insiders, but then I got it – it's in their interest to get the US interested in F1.

So all-in-all a disappointing film about my favourite racing driver of the eighties and nineties. Yes Senna was my favourite driver and I'm sure if he was still with us he would view this fawning, selective audience production as an unworthy testament to his genius.

The Ghost Writer (2010)

Nice plot poorly executed

[4/10 · 30 April 2012]

Really quite disappointing and I just can't believe the gushing reviews it has here.

I'm not going to list all of the bad bits that has already been done by others but I will say I have never seen such a 'thriller' with so many far fetched situations. Also some of the scenes looked staged and the dialogue stilted and as for Miss Cattrall's performance, hmmm.

The main underlying problem was the protagonist's motivation, it was just not believable he would do all he did without a reason, why not give him with a brother who was killed in Lang's wars? Or at least a character that makes him nosey or a liking for being a nuisance.

I've given it four out of ten for the nice story idea, although when you think about it that is also pretty ridiculous. Why would the US go to all that trouble, we Brits already do as we are told. After all, all you have to do is cause a run on the pound like you did at Suez and we're finished. That's what I call a special relationship.

Chatroom (2010)

Producers misunderstood the subject and the audience, but still worth a look

[6/10 · 26 November 2011]

Yes you can pick holes at this film until teatime and everybody assumes it is because the actors, director, and writers were not up to it, but I would like to put forward another theory.

As with most British films (exceptions being Messrs Loach & Leigh) an audience has to be established before it will be backed. I'm afraid the days of just making a fine film and hoping people will appreciate it are long gone. In the case of this film they chose a young audience and that is the reason for most of the frustrating shortcomings. They figure, I guess with some reason that the film had to be dynamic, action packed and with not too much dialogue to prevent the little scamps getting bored and twittering their friends to tell everybody what a boring movie they were watching.

Unfortunately with a film focusing on people chatting online this was always going to be a struggle. Turning the virtual world into a physical location was a nice idea, but it was overused and over expanded. I also agree with all of the other reviewers claiming the relationships weren't sufficiently developed and that too quickly the lead character had the others eating out of his hand, but as already mentioned this was not due to a lack of talent but a conscious choice to make the movie this way. I am sure the writers and the director were more than capable of doing this and if you look at the deleted scenes on the DVD a lot of good stuff is there doing the job.

But alas no, we had to have that unnecessary climax and all those visual corridor scenes which did nothing for the narrative. An interesting comparison is with the film: 'Social Network', which is full of rapid quick fire dialogue and scenes cutting quickly between locations and times zones and you have to concentrate consistently to understand what is going on. Something the film makers of this film don't think young people are capable of. To my knowledge this film was popular with all age groups, but yes your right this film was about Facebook, an entity most young people have a stake in, but couldn't that be also said of chatrooms? In short the producers misunderstood their subject matter and their audience and in doing so have missed an opportunity to make a great film and have instead created another forgettable British flop. Shame.

Sixty Six (2006)

It's got everything except the right number of laughs

[7/10 · 13 September 2011]

Another almost there movie. It is let down by the fact that it is meant to be a comedy, but it is just not funny enough. Everything else is bang on except perhaps some of the characterisations, the only one I really warmed to was the blind rabbi and his dog (which produces most of the laughs!)

I'm not from this world and it seems to really enjoy this film, it has to strike a chord. Well there was no resonance for me, I had to be made to laugh just using what was on the screen.

Regarding the laugh count I think the makers realised this was low too as demonstrated by the: 'what's that drink? It's a bloody Mary. Alright I was only asking' gag. Smacks of desperation I'm afraid.

Even so the nice warm ending was worth waiting for.

The Scouting Book for Boys (2009)

It looks great, it sounds great, the acting's great so why ain't it a great movie?

[6/10 · 12 September 2011]

A picture post card perfect movie, unfortunately like a postcard there isn't much room for the message! With me films that are almost there make me more angry than complete turkeys because you're left thinking what a waste. This is the case with TSBFB. The set up is perfect, the photography exceptional- iconic in parts, the characters well drawn with great acting from the two young central characters. The second half fails to deliver though - why? I'm afraid for me it is the script. It thins out and gets a little desperate relying on the young male leads tendency to suffer a narcolepsy attack every time the story gets into difficulty! There is no real climax and I think this was a brave attempt to not follow the formula, but if you haven't got one then you need something else and this film didn't hence my sense of anti-climax.

The Fourth Kind (2009)

Based on a real lie!

[4/10 · 5 June 2011]

Of course it's all the Coen brothers fault claiming that their film Fargo was based on a true story. Now you get all sorts of fakers claiming their film is also true. But whereas you forgave the brothers Coen because it was such a good film when it is used with a bad film it just makes you angry and despise the film makers. I'm afraid that is the case with the Fourth Kind.

And why is it bad? Well, the use of 'real' and staged footage would only work providing they were kept apart. Once we see duplicated scenes it just reminds you the actors are acting i.e. it is not real. The illusion is destroyed. Apart from that the acting was very stagey, and the script stumbled from cliché to another. Lastly, the abduction thing has been done to death hasn't it? You really need an original angle and this film did not have one apart from the 'based on a real story' codswallop.

Positives? It did make me jump a couple of times and the camera work seemed on the nose, but apart from that - oh dear.

Lady Godiva (2008)

So bad it's actually very entertaining!

[4/10 · 1 April 2011]

Oh gosh where to start. I saw Miss Jewson being interviewed on Chris Jones' web site where she spoke about this film. Interested I logged on here to look at some reviews and was shocked at the viciousness of the comments (some of them personal, which reflect more on the reviewers than the reviewed!). Now intrigued I bought a copy off amazon and sat down with the 'misses' to watch it.

Well I have to say - yes it is a stinker, but it reminded me of a TV adaptation of one of Jilly Cooper's novels 'Riders' which was also awful but interestingly so awful people liked it! It was unintentionally hilarious and this is in the same category.

Watching it is like sucking on a lemon and trying not to wince. It is full of cringingley clichéd moments that you find yourself looking away from and feeling embarrassed.

But hey this site does not need another person slagging this film off so hats off Miss Jewson for getting a feature made, and on that patronising note I think I'll finish the review. Except to say in years to come I'm sure the director will have a laugh at her own expense and think: 'what was I doing?'

Shifty (2008)

Despite the over familiar subject matter - a good little film

[7/10 · 20 February 2011]

Yes, a good film, and for one made for a £100 grand a hell of an achievement. The performances were good to excellent (the Trevor character in particular was particularly convincing). I like the fact the film makers had not resorted to simplistic visuals to get the message across. For example the estate where they lived looked pretty nice and yet even with the sunshine you still felt this story was right there.

My only reservations are I didn't consider the banter was as convincing as everybody seems to think it was. But mainly it was the subject matter. Guns, gangsters, drugs, family conflict here we go again. Apparently, the original script focused on the dealer and his customers and that would have suited me more.

But if you get the chance to see it - well worth a look.

The Club (1980)

Forget the sports theme - just a fantastic film full of great characters

[8/10 · 21 January 2011]

What can I say? A complete and utter gem of a film. Saw it many years ago on Channel 4 (in the eighties I think) and never forgot it. Bought it last week off Amazon watched it last night and it was every bit as good as I remembered it. How many past favourites can you say that about? When I get into conversations about favourite films or why all sports films are awful I mention this film and nobody has ever heard of it! Certainly in England that is the case (as the miserable tally of 16 reviews on this site for a 30 year old film testifies!). It's incredible - I've never seen a film with so much verbal conflict. Every scene seems to have a barny (argument) in it, but do you ever grow tired of them? No you don't! That is because they appear completely natural and not contrived at all - full credit to everyone there. My favourite character is Jock, what a complete an utter rotter! And the hilarious thing is he thinks he is really popular! Love it.

My preference, and this is not a criticism, would have been to have all the fun at the club plus more of a study of the wayward club star's relationship with his partner. I thought her transition from a non-competitive hippy type into a protective and proud wife could have been fascinating and very interesting to watch. But hey that's just me.

I would recommend this film to anyone.

The Waterdance (1992)

Despite a lot of faults - still a good watch

[7/10 · 8 December 2010]

This film was recommended to me back in the nineties and I thought yeah I'll catch it on TV, but I've not been aware of it ever being broadcasted. In the end I had to buy an old VHS video of Amazon.

Was it worth it? Well yes I guess it was. But it is one of those films that you can pick at many holes but still find yourself being entertained. Of course it has the lovely Helen Hunt in it and in that hotel room well... sorry if I say that I will detract from the overall quality of my review.

I liked the story and its intention to portray interesting and flawed characters. What I struggled with was the editing. A lot of characters must have had scenes cut as their transition from one type of person to another was too brief. I wasn't always sure what experiences/interactions had changed their behaviour. Also the music annoyed me and made me think of the film as being made in the 1980s and not the 1990s.

However, apart from that an interesting story well acted and shot.

The Hide (2008)

Highly watchable and worthy effort

[7/10 · 5 December 2010]

Must be incredibly difficult to create a script that holds an audiences attention with only two actors and a interior and exterior location. Plus one of those characters having to portray a quiet menacing stranger.

To compensate the other character is a chatterbox nerdy type who if I'm being picky plays a stereotypical nerd (only the classic nerdy voice is missing) when a greater challenge might have been to give us perhaps a variation on that theme. As we find out towards the end of the film he is not completely what he seems so maybe a couple of subtle clues that his character had moved on from being obsessed with the banal might have been fun. (If they're in there and I've missed them I apologise!) The resolution is a bit desperate but with only two characters when it is not? I have to admit I laughed out loud when the dynamite bomb was pulled out of the bag - not the effect the film maker was after, me thinks.

Still I'll recommend it to anybody interested.

Unmade Beds (2009)

A refreshing change - a simple story simply told

[8/10 · 2 December 2010]

This is a nice gentle little film. The type of indy that use to get made all of the time before producers and worthy script editors decided each film had to have a quota of gangsters, fist fights and murders. I loved the fact that we didn't have to rely on any of these to tell a story, establish characters and reach a conclusion.

I can understand some of the harsh comments on this site coming from people who feel cheated because this quota is not there. They've seen so many films building up to getting rid of a dead body or finding somewhere to stash the loot that when they are confronted with something that simply presents the lives of ordinary people (okay ordinary but very good looking people who look like they have stumbled off the set of a Lynx advert) it is not enough for them.

If more films like this were made and we could all learn to enjoy them then we would enjoy even more our usual diet of kiss kiss bang bang because of the variety these two types of films present. That's why I get bored with films today they all want to shock or imitate a computer game. It doesn't always have to be like that.

The Disappearance of Alice Creed (2009)

An almost there thriller let down by an under developed script

[6/10 · 2 December 2010]

As usual I'm in the middle as far as ratings go. This film isn't the best thriller I've seen but it also isn't the worst either. I love the photography especially the opening segment and on the whole the acting is good as well. What lacked for me was the script and in particular the dialogue.

I'm always being told story twists work much better when after finding them out the audience can go: 'of course! That's why they did so and so! In this story that has not been bothered with much and so the twists while genuinely surprising only serve as cheap shocks. And to be honest there is plenty of room for these snippets of back story to be inserted. The dialogue between the two bad guys centres on one repeatedly reminding the other one to stay alert and threatening him if he doesn't. This time could have been better spent and much more fun alluding to their relationship.

I also thought the style made it look too desperate for suspense. Certain scenes were overblown. The toilet scene in particular was quite ridiculous where we get the full treatment: snarling bad guy, climatic music the lot – why? Because the other bad guy had flushed the toilet three times! Sorry didn't buy it.

But on the whole very professional and watchable. I'm of a certain age when you couldn't say that about most British thrillers. And for a first time director – an excellent effort.

Wild Target (2010)

I would have laughed more in 1972

[6/10 · 24 October 2010]

Absolutely nothing wrong with this film, well cast, well acted, professionally shot and produced - perfect if the year was 1972! I haven't seen the French film this was based on but even in the early nineties this story would have seemed tired. The world has moved on, and making this film is the equivalent of remaking 'Are You Being Served' (for non-Brits that's a: dated seventies TV sit com).

No attempt was made, that I spotted, to give the story a bit of originality - something a bit different. I don't know if the writer's hands were tied and they had to stick to the original, but oh dear.

I thought the actors were trying their best but if you've seen all the gags before (many times) how are you expected to laugh? Emily Blunt is lovely but no amount of her flouncing around in her short skirts and high heels is going to save a movie bereft of any other graces. However, if somebody could squeeze out another story in the same genre with an element of originality and real comic drama she'd be perfect in the same role.

Open Water (2003)

Should have been shocker but turned out to be a TV docu-drama

[6/10 · 31 July 2010]

First of all congratulations to Chris Kentis for spotting this topic and writing and directing the film. Now you can tell after praising the film maker up front the rest of this review is going to be quite critical! This film unnerved me, it made me feel uncomfortable as well and that's the problem - it should have frightened the absolute living daylights out of me! Because I rate being deserted at sea in shark-infested waters right up there in the scary-stakes with being buried alive. Now I respect Mr Kentis and his collaborators decision to tell the story in a very minimalist way, I guess they considered this story was powerful enough on its own not to require a heavy hand, and I could have agreed with them pre production. But now having seen it I don't think it was. I'm not saying they needed full on John Williams score and masses of special effects but perhaps varying the camera angles a bit more would have worked better.

Most of the story is told with the camera in an elevated position looking down on the protagonists, i.e a boat! This means I am divorced from any threat or the action. Couldn't we have got down to eye level more allowing us to feel we were more apart of the story? It was our toes about be chomped off? I'm afraid in the drama stakes this movie never got anymore dramatic than the average TV docu-drama and that's a real shame for after coming up with this concept and creating a half decent script Mr Kentis has missed an opportunity to create a classic.

Atonement (2007)

'Brief Encounter' for the noughties fails to deliver

[3/10 · 8 July 2010]

The next time a reviewer questions some of the scenes in my script by saying: 'yes Colin very nice but how are the characters developing and do these actions really drive forward the narrative?' I'm gonna leap across the desk and smack him/her across the head with a copy of this DVD and snarl: 'they didn't bother in this movie so why should I? OR! Or I could say it was written exclusively for Mr Joe Wright and such frippery doesn't matter. As long as it looks pretty and is very expensive to create he'll be perfectly happy. And so were my daughter and wife - they loved this film and hate me for hating it.

I've not read the book so can't comment on that, but as the story appears in the film it doesn't work. I read somewhere if you are adapting a complicated novel it is always advisable to chose one character and tell their story. On the DVD they claim it was Briony's story, then why did we spend so much time in France meeting characters she didn't meet? Or was that also just a chapter from the book she was writing as well? I don't know and unfortunately I don't care.

Fish Tank (2009)

Big Director still looking for a big script to match her immense talents

[7/10 · 10 May 2010]

There is surely no argument about it now that Arnold is a very fine film director in the gritty contemporary drama genre. I'm less convinced about her writing and this film convinces me even more. She sets excellent scenes, creates interesting characters (even though we've seen them many times before), draws fantastic performances from a predominantly young cast, and creates realistic tension and drama, but in Fish Tank the resolution is weak and in the last act I thought the story got a bit lost as if she didn't know where to go with it or changed her mind several times in a bid to find originality. I'd be interested to learn how she wrote it whether that was always the ending from the first draft, or she tried to bolt on several versions before finally settling on the one we see in the film.

Make no mistake about it she is a special talent (a sort of ginger female Shane Meadows) and if she ever gets her hands on a brilliant story (written by herself or another) then they're will be no stopping her. I look forward to seeing her next film.

Happy-Go-Lucky (2008)

Interesting to watch but short on story

[7/10 · 30 March 2010]

I can't help feeling there is something of the emperor's clothes about Mike Leigh's work. Daring to challenge it makes you look stupid because you obviously aren't intelligent enough to get it all. That goes for this film as well, where I could not understand what some scenes were actually adding to the story. But maybe that is it, this isn't story telling as I normally understand it instead it is snapshot of somebodies life. Some scenes are useful and help you understand the main character others are not and just happen to be in the linear time span of somebodies life.

Having said that I enjoyed it, Sally Hawkins is annoyingly endearing as 'Poppy' and I'm glad it stayed away from the clichéd 'tragedy behind the mask of a clown' theme. However, I personally would have appreciated an investigation into why she is so eternally happy other than her exposition. Maybe it was there but I'm just not intelligent enough to have spotted it!

Formula 51 (2001)

Decent premise but with cardboard cut out characters and a lame script

[1/10 · 24 March 2010]

Well no chance of me leaving spoilers in this review because I've just turned off this load of rubbish to come and write this. As I sat there watching it a sense of disbelief washed over me, I couldn't believe anything this bad could get made, and have a decent budget and have a genuine Hollywood star (although apparently that star was responsible for this tosh getting made!).

Didn't anybody involved at anytime in the pre-production say that perhaps we ought to put in at least one original element - oh hang on the 'yank in a kilt' perhaps that was sufficient for all involved. We've got the lot here: keystone cops; sexy hit woman; bungling gangsters; moronic skinheads almost every stereotype imaginable. As for the dialogue well it had no chance to be smart, snappy or funny because of all the expletives it had to contain. You see this is the north of England and everybody speaks like that.

I wonder where it all went wrong. Clearly the script was poor, but the directing of the actors was shocking, I know sometimes over the top sometimes works but here it clearly did not. What a shame, the basic plot while not completely original could have worked but the cartoon acting and complete lack of drama surrounding the action made it all fall flat.

I'm pleased the citizens of Liverpool got a buzz from seeing their city featured in an action comedy film but I bet they also wish it had been a lot better.

The Lives of Others (2006)

A masterpiece of story telling

[10/10 · 5 February 2010]

Some really average films get held up as classics nowadays - but here we have a genuine classic.

Everything works together and supports the story, no over indulgent 'David Leanesque' camera shots; no over-the-top performances from any of the actors. Okay, maybe a little sentimental in parts, but by then you are completely sucked in by the performances and the story so it doesn't matter.

I implore all film lovers, who haven't seen this movie to do so immediately and if you don't think it is one of the best films ever made - to quote Ron Burgundy: 'I will fight you and that's no lie!'

The Hurt Locker (2008)

Decent bunch of actors and a good DOP looking for a good script

[5/10 · 4 February 2010]

Nope, I don't get it. To all the people who have written glowing reviews of this film I respect your opinion but you must seeing stuff I can't see or I'm stuck in a time warp and the things that matter to me in a good film just aren't included anymore. Things I did like were the acting and the photography – splendid. Nothing new I know but it worked well.

Now for the story, as far as I could see it was a series of admittedly gripping bomb disposal scenes interspersed with half-hearted attempts to give the three central characters depth and far fetched action scenes I guess included to widen the audience and appeal to the 'Call of Duty' playing fraternity. And that is worth an Oscar nomination? 'Give me a break', as you American fellows like to say. I'm guessing it was just trying to do something different by breaking a few of the story telling rules (like not winding up all of the characters stories), but to me this tactic ensured it failed as a feature.